Bernard Jenkin: The Secretary of State must be the only person in the House who does not understand that the armed forces are overstretched and under-resourced for the commitments that they have undertaken. When is he going to face up to the fact? If the military has to cancel 10 per cent. of their training every year, the resources are clearly not available for it to do the job and be trained for the job that it is meant to do?

Peter Tapsell: Will the Secretary of State give careful thought to the thesis that the longer that foreign troops unavailingly remain in southern Afghanistan, the greater the likelihood that Pakistan will turn into a fundamentalist, Islamic, hostile state, with the result that it will be a more immediately potent nuclear threat than even Iran?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right that a big job continues to be necessary on the estate for service family accommodation and single living accommodation. However, he should not undervalue the amount of work being done, the amount of money being spent and the size of the continuing building programme. In the past year alone, £700 million was spent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there is a plan for £5 billion to be spent in the next 10 years. However, we will not put right decades of neglect overnight. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) points at Conservative Members, and during their reign, practically no investment was made in service living accommodation. The matter is being addressed, but it will not be sorted out overnight.

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement about the outcome of the informal European Council in Lisbon. The new agreed text of the amending treaty to support the enlargement of the European Union has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	Alongside the treaty, it was agreed at Lisbon that the priority for the European Union must now be the global challenges that we face in relation to employment, prosperity, competitiveness, climate change and security. Today—in a document, "Global Europe", published this afternoon and available to the House now—the Government set out how we will advance those new priorities in the future.
	The mandate for the IGC made clear that "the constitutional concept"— [Interruption].

Gordon Brown: The mandate made clear that
	"the constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them with a single text called 'Constitution', is abandoned".
	My intention throughout the summer and autumn of negotiations has also been to ensure that the detailed safeguards for the British national interest are written into the text of the treaty. I invite the House to examine in detail both the treaty and the protections that we have secured by our insistence on special treatment for the UK in a range of areas where our national interests demand it.
	First, I will ensure that Parliament has the fullest opportunity to examine the protocol on the charter of fundamental rights. The protocol, which is legally binding and enshrined in the treaty itself, provides an essential safeguard for the UK. It states that
	"the Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that the Charter reaffirms".
	The legally binding protocol ensures that nothing in the charter of fundamental rights challenges or undermines the rights already set out in UK law. The treaty also ensures that nothing in the charter extends the ability of any court, European or national, to strike down UK law. The point is reaffirmed in the protocol:
	"in particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law."
	Secondly, we have secured in detail vital safeguards to our criminal law system and police and judicial processes, while making it possible to co-operate across borders when we choose to do so and when it is right in matters vital to our security. The safeguards are also enshrined in legally binding protocols to the treaty. They prescribe in detail our sovereign right to opt in on individual measures when we consider it in the British interest to do so, but also to remain outside if that is in our interests. In the past, for example, we have opted in on measures dealing with combating illegal immigration and the exchange of information when such measures are unquestionably in Britain's interests. The new treaty gives us freedom to protect the fundamentals of our common law system if we believe that it could be jeopardised, while at the same time allowing us to participate in areas where co-operation is in the national interest. The agreement set out in the details of the text is that it will be in our exclusive power to decide, on a measure-by-measure basis.
	As a result of our recent negotiations, the opt-in now covers all types of measures, including completely new measures and amendments to existing measures. When measures come forward under the Schengen agreement, we also have the right to opt out. We can choose to participate in any and every measure, but we cannot be forced to do so. If we choose not to, there is a fair, objective and robust system for consequential changes, but no financial or other penalties. We have secured a comprehensive, legally binding opt-in on all justice and home affairs measures, which will enable the UK to choose whether or not to participate in any justice or home affairs measure in the future.
	I turn to the common foreign and security policy. I welcome further scrutiny by this House of the agreements that we have secured because again, I believe it is now absolutely clear that the basis of foreign and security policy will remain intergovernmental—a matter for Governments to decide. The intergovernmental basis is unchanged, and subject to distinct rules and procedures that protect that position. The declaration that we secured expressly states that nothing in the treaty affects the existing powers of member states to formulate and conduct their foreign policy, including maintaining their own national diplomatic services and membership of the United Nations Security Council. There is no sole right of initiative for the Commission, and there is no role for the European Parliament in decision taking. Voting by unanimity is the rule for all policy decisions. Apart from two specific and limited provisions in foreign policy—appeals against EU sanctions and, as now, any overlap, for example, with international development assistance—there is no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice.
	The declaration agreed on Friday made it clear that the European Parliament would have no new role in the appointment to the new post of high representative, which will be made by the European Council. And there will be no change to the way EU foreign policy is decided—it will continue to be governed by unanimity. There is, in addition, a clear declaration that nothing in the treaty, including the Office of the High Representative and the External Action Service will
	"affect in any way the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries, and participation in international organisations, including a Member State's membership of the Security Council of the UN."
	On social security, we have secured an effective veto power on any proposals for important change. We can insist on taking any proposal to the European Council and, because it will be decided by unanimity, we have a veto where we—Britain—determine that a proposal would impact on important aspects of our social security system, including its scope, cost or financial structure. In justice and home affairs, the amending treaty gives us the right not to participate; in social security, it gives us the right to insist on unanimity.
	Many qualified majority voting measures, for example, rules for the euro or special state aids for Germany, do not affect the United Kingdom. The remaining areas of QMV agreed in June are decisions on emergency humanitarian aid to third countries—manifestly in Britain's interest—and energy market liberalisation, again in our interest. Others are technical or procedural and simply relate to the efficient functioning of the Union, for example, the internal rules for appointing the Committee of the Regions, judges and the Economic and Social Committee.
	While there is a two-and-a-half-year presidency of the Council, the President of the Council has been appointed as the servant of the leaders of the national Governments—and the purpose is to strengthen the Council of national Governments in relation to other EU institutions.
	The new treaty also expressly provides that national security is the sole responsibility of member states. The declaration to the treaty makes it clear that while the European Union, like the UN and the International Monetary Fund, can sign international agreements, this does not, and cannot, authorise the Union in any way to legislate or act beyond the powers conferred on it by member states in the treaties.
	As a result of our negotiation, we are agreed that the new text will make it clear that national Parliaments have the right, but are not obliged, to contribute to the work of the Union. Under the amending treaty, national Parliaments have a new right to force the EU to reconsider proposals if a third of Parliaments feel that the issue is better dealt with at member state level. And symbols of statehood that were the characteristic of the rejected constitutional treaty—European flags, anthems or mottos—have been abandoned in the treaty.
	As I have already made clear, the Government will only agree the amending treaty in December if, in the final text, all the UK protections that I have outlined are included in the detail we have negotiated. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this amending treaty in detail and decide whether to ratify it. The Government will recommend that there is sufficient time for debate on the Floor of the House so that the Bill is examined in the fullest of detail and all points of view can be heard— [ Interruption. ]

David Cameron: The Prime Minister says that he wants Europe to focus on competitiveness and climate change and is opposed to further institutional change. I have to say that people will ask why he did not say that boldly at the start of the intergovernmental conference, rather than lamely at the end of it.
	There is one fundamental question arising from today's statement. When a party makes a promise in a manifesto, can it be trusted to keep it? The Prime Minister has described the Labour manifesto as an issue of trust. That manifesto promised a referendum on the EU constitution. If this Prime Minister goes back on that promise, how can he expect his promises to be believed in future? In his statement, he did not even mention that R word once. As his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who helped to write the constitution, said:
	"If Labour can't trust the people, why should the people trust Labour?"
	First of all, let us look at the content of the treaty. Will the Prime Minister confirm the following—that the treaty gets rid of the veto in 60 areas, including in energy, transport and self-employment law? The Prime Minister has given up on the veto but he says that is okay because he has got rid of the motto. Well, I have a motto for him: "Let the people decide".
	Will the Prime Minister confirm that this treaty means an EU President and Foreign Minister and an EU diplomatic service in all but name? Will he confirm that it includes a new ratchet clause that allows even more vetoes to be scrapped without the need for a new intergovernmental conference? The Prime Minister says that there will be no more institutional change for 10 years but he has just agreed a treaty that allows institutional changes to take place every year.
	The Prime Minister deploys two main arguments against holding a referendum: first, he says, the treaty is not the same as the constitution and, secondly, he says that Britain is a special case because of our opt-outs and our red lines. Let me take the two arguments in turn: first, the claim that the new treaty is substantially different from the constitution. The Irish Prime Minister says that it is 90 per cent. the same. The Spanish Foreign Minister says that it is 98 per cent. the same. The German Chancellor says:
	"The substance of the constitution is preserved...That is a fact."
	Why does the Prime Minister think all of them are wrong and he is right?
	What is more, is not it the case that even his colleagues do not believe him? His new trade Minister, Lord Jones of Birmingham, days before his appointment said:
	"This is a con to call it a treaty—it's not. It's exactly the same—it's a constitution."
	The Prime Minister's colleagues on the Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee say that the EU treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the constitution, even for Britain. They say that pretending otherwise, as the Prime Minister keeps doing, is "likely to be misleading".
	Next, the Prime Minister says that even if it is a constitution for other countries it is not for Britain because of our opt-outs and our red lines. Will he confirm that the red lines do not include the EU President, the single legal personality, the vetoes or the ratchet clause? That is why his hon. Friend who helped to draft the constitution described the red lines as "red herrings".
	Even the areas covered by the red lines are falling apart; take the red line on tax. The Government told the BBC that it was a bit of a con and "purely presentational" because tax was never going to be part of the treaty anyway. Is not it the case that the red line on foreign policy is only in a declaration? It is not legally binding and legal advice to the European Scrutiny Committee says that it may turn out to be "meaningless".
	With the red line on the charter of fundamental rights, the former Prime Minister promised us an opt-out. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister for Europe had to write to the Scrutiny Committee to explain that it was not an opt-out after all, but just a clarification? That actually matters. The Prison Officers Association has already announced that it will take the Government to court so that it can have the right to strike that is set out in the charter of fundamental rights.
	The red line on criminal justice has also been torn apart by the European Scrutiny Committee. The Chairman of the Committee said:
	"We believe that the red lines will not be sustainable...we believe these will be challenged...and eventually the UK will be in a position where it will have all of the treaty...we think"—
	the red lines—
	"will basically leak like a sieve."
	So much for the red lines, but even if they were totally robust and watertight it would not affect the case for a referendum, because they are the same red lines as the Prime Minister's predecessor set out for the constitution. Then, as now, the Government claimed that the charter would not affect UK law. Then, as now, the Government claimed that we were protected from measures on foreign policy, tax and criminal law and then, as now, they claimed that there was no great constitutional change at stake. So why promise a referendum then, but not now? Is not the answer perfectly clear?
	The last Prime Minister, standing at the Dispatch Box, said,
	"let the battle be joined";—[ Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 157.]
	whereas this Prime Minister says, let battle be avoided wherever possible, especially if people are to have their say. That is why he is not having a referendum. He does not think he would win it. Why does he continue to treat people like fools by pretending otherwise? Why does he continue to put forward arguments that do not even convince his own colleagues?
	This is the Prime Minister who stood outside Downing street four months ago promising to restore trust in politics, but now he is betraying people's trust. He promised to listen, but he refuses to give people the chance to speak. He promised to honour his manifesto, but he is breaking one of the most important manifesto commitments of all. He says that this issue will be settled by Parliament, so perhaps he could start his response by answering a simple question: when Parliament votes on whether to hold a referendum, will he allow his side a free vote? He has absolutely no democratic mandate to sign this treaty without a referendum. If he breaks his trust with the British people, they will rightly say, "How can we ever trust him on anything else again?"

Gordon Brown: I will answer every point in detail, but I notice that the right hon. Gentleman mentions nothing about the long-term agenda for Europe—not one thing. Is it not remarkable that, after six years of debate about institutions, not one Government in the rest of Europe—not one of the 27—support his opposition to the amending treaty? Is it not remarkable that only one Government—Ireland—who are constitutionally obliged to do so, think that the issues justify a referendum now? Is it not also remarkable that, in his own shadow Cabinet, those members who were there in 1992 all voted against a referendum on a more far-reaching treaty in Maastricht?
	As for the individual questions that the right hon. Gentleman put to me, the first was on the passerelles—as for those that he raised, I have to tell him that they were legislated for in the Single European Act by Lady Thatcher. As for the implementation of passerelles, they require unanimity, and sometimes I think that he does not listen to me, because I said directly that, in the House of Commons, Members of Parliament would have a vote directly on the issue of whether or not to implement any of the passerelles.
	As for foreign policy, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that foreign policy remains an intergovernmental matter and the decisions remain to be made by unanimity. Those are the two building blocks of the common foreign and security policy: the decisions are intergovernmental and taken by unanimity. That means that Britain has the right to decide. The right hon. Gentleman raised that issue in terms of justice and home affairs, but the fact is that we have an opt-in on all the important issues that have to be decided—an opt-in that has been negotiated by us, including in relation to Schengen measures, where we can opt out if we choose to do so. The fact of the matter is that, on this issue too, Britain will decide.
	On social security, because we have a veto on any further new decision, it is Britain that will decide. As for the charter of rights, I think that the right hon. Gentleman should read the protocol, which means that there are no rights in British law as a result of that charter. It is exactly for that reason that the CBI has issued a statement saying that it supports our interpretation of it.
	I am afraid to say that, because the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to look at the long-term agenda for Europe, people will rightly draw the one conclusion that is drawn by the behaviour of Conservative Members: not only are they against the amending treaty, but they wish to renegotiate the membership of the European Union; they wish to withdraw from employment and social legislation; and not only that, they have a decision to make on whether, when the treaty is ratified, they will support a referendum even after the ratification, which means that they have to renegotiate with all the other 26 members on our membership of the European Union. For a country where 62 per cent. of our trade lies with Europe, I have to say that the years of economic uncertainty and instability that would result from such renegotiation would, in my view, be unacceptable to British business and unacceptable to the British people.
	The House should also know, in conclusion, what friends the Conservative party has in Europe. The Conservatives said that they would form the Movement for European Reform and they said that other countries would join, and they announced at a press conference that the Czech party had joined and then that the Bulgarian party had joined. Then, only a few days ago, the European People's party announced that the Bulgarians had already withdrawn from the Movement for European Reform. Then, the right hon. Gentleman has got his last remaining friends, whom he calls his closest allies in Europe—the Czech Civic Democrats—but his only allies in Europe support the amending treaty.  [Interruption.]

Michael Connarty: First, I commend the Prime Minister on correctly quoting the European Scrutiny Committee report when he uses it. We said:
	"We consider that, for those countries which have not requested derogations or opt outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty...the new Treaty produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty."
	Of course, we do have derogations and opt-outs.
	Secondly, turning to the Schengen building agreements and framework decisions, there are 70 to 80 areas in which we have agreed that there is no role for the European Court of Justice, but if we opt in to these and to clauses 62 to 69 of the reform treaty, those areas will be controlled by the European Court of Justice and the Commission. Will the Prime Minister assure us that whatever Bill he introduces in this House will include detailed procedures so that this House knows its role in deciding whether the Government should be advised to opt in or not to opt in to those things, or whether to accept the opt-out in certain areas, as we go along through the five years and debate whether there will be transposition of all those 70 to 80 areas?

Gordon Brown: I can clarify to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the protocol is legally binding in the UK. I would have thought that he, as a lawyer, could see that it is part of the treaty and therefore legally binding. That is the position of the Government. I would have thought more of his comments if he had voted for a referendum in 1992, which he did not do.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister referred to the enforced liberalisation of the energy market in Europe. That is very important because we have been trying to persuade the French to do this for a long time so that British companies could own French energy companies just as French energy companies presently own British ones. Is this not even more important as we face up to Russia and try to ensure our energy security into the future?
	Will the Prime Minister welcome article 84 of the treaty, which is about intellectual property rights? We have been campaigning to try to ensure that, as the Gowers review said was necessary for the British economy, we have strong intellectual property rights across the whole of Europe, which will now come in thanks only to this treaty.

David Borrow: When members of the European Scrutiny Committee, including myself, looked at these issues, we raised legitimate concerns about the firmness of some of the red lines. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate place for those to be debated and discussed is in this Chamber, by Members of Parliament elected to scrutinise such treaties? Will he confirm that there will be sufficient time for every Member of this House to participate in those discussions?

Gordon Brown: I have just quoted Giscard d'Estaing, who said that:
	"As to the balance sheet of the changes, it mainly favours Great Britain" .
	I could quote the President of the Commission, who said that there are "important differences" as far as this affects Britain. I could go on to quote the President of the European Parliament, who says exactly the same—that
	"The special needs of the United Kingdom have been ... taken into account."
	The way in which the treaty affects Britain is different from the way it affects the other 26 countries. Again, I would think more of what the hon. Gentleman was saying if he had not voted against a referendum in 1992.

James Brokenshire: The first thing to note about new clause 1 and the accompanying new clause 2 is that they are obviously very late in consideration. Given what the Minister has said about their importance and necessity, it is surprising that we are considering these proposals on Report—after the entirety of the Bill has already been examined.
	I acknowledge what the Minister has said about the complexity of what is involved. I accept that in serious and organised crime, criminals will go to great lengths to ensure that their true purpose is disguised and that different corporate structures may be used to try to hide criminal activity. On the face of it, whatever the merits of serious crime prevention orders—we will come on to debate them later—if they are to apply and be effective, there is clearly a need for monitoring to ensure that their terms are adhered to. Without proper monitoring the orders will be ineffective, because it will not be known whether they have been breached and whether the appropriate sanctions should apply. I realise that the position is complex and that on the face of it there is a need for experts to be involved, but the new clause leaves a good deal of room for improvement.
	I want to raise a few points on which I have sought elucidation from the Minister. The key point is that, while a person or corporate body subject to a serious crime prevention order would need to appear before a court, that person or body would not necessarily have committed a serious offence, but would only have had to be involved in a serious crime. We shall discuss that more fully during our wider debate on the orders themselves.
	It might be said that involvement in a serious crime indicated a direct link and was therefore extremely important, but the wording of the Bill suggests that the link may be somewhat more indirect. Clause 2(1)(b) and (c) make clear that such involvement could include a person's facilitating the commission of a serious offence, or conducting himself
	"in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission"
	of a serious offence. There is no requirement for intention in those circumstances. Indeed, clause 4(2) imposes what is almost a reverse burden of proof on the person who is potentially subject to an order, who must show that his actions were "reasonable in the circumstances".
	The Minister said that only about 30 orders a year would be issued, and that has been stated consistently and clearly throughout the review of the draft legislation. What is not clear is whether this measure is really about the Mr. Bigs or whether it is likely to be used far more widely than the Minister intends, purely because of the way in which it is drafted. That is worrying in this context and a number of others. Notwithstanding possible assurances that the measure is supposed to be limited and to attack only the very central figures, it could be interpreted as allowing peripheral figures who, despite having no direct intention and no direct knowledge that they have facilitated or been engaged in facilitating serious crime, may find themselves subject to a serious crime prevention order—and, subsequently, to another order requiring them to pay for the monitoring of their compliance with it.
	That potential injustice leaves me extremely uncomfortable with the ambit of the new clause, despite the Minister's statement that it is intended to focus only on a very small group of corporates, and to ensure that forensic accountants and experts are brought in to aid the monitoring, enforcement and interpretation of the orders. That second aspect—cost—strikes me as extremely important. I have already described the legislation as wide-ranging and potentially draconian. New clause 1(4) states
	"A serious crime prevention order which provides for an authorised monitor may require any body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association which is the subject of the order to pay to the law enforcement agency concerned some or all of the costs incurred by the agency under the arrangements with the authorised monitor."
	It goes on to state that payments on account may also be required, which effectively means that payment must be made in advance of the monitoring.
	As we have heard from the Minister, it is unclear how those costs will be assessed; in essence, they will be drawn in through secondary legislation. It is also unclear how the court will determine those costs and, therefore, the impact on the business concerned. He has tried to point out the protections in new clause 1(7), which is intended to give the courts a particular role in assessing the relevant circumstances, examining
	"(a) the means of the body corporate...
	(b) the expected size of the costs".
	The provision also deals with the effect that the order and the monitoring would have on that body corporate.
	We do not know what those costs will be, how they will be assessed and how they will be measured. The court will be put in a difficult position in assessing the impact of the order on the body—the company or business—because it will have to undertake a detailed examination and review of the finances, the business and the way that the company operates to assess whether the order would have a particular effect and whether it would risk the bankruptcy, liquidation or winding up of the company. That will be a hard decision for the court to make, particularly given that it will have to make an assessment of costs that may subsequently change.
	I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government will set out in the order what the compliance should be, what the terms of the order are and therefore why there is a need for monitoring, but difficulties are involved. Given my professional background, I know that sometimes the costs that one is given in advance may not end up being the costs that arise. The monitor—this expert—will have to make a judgment about what is involved and what its own professional costs are likely to be in seeking the order in the first place.
	The court will be in a difficult position. How will it go about assessing the costs and the impact when it may have limited information on that body corporate? It will clearly not have a full understanding of how that company conducts its business, the pressures on it and the market conditions. This provision could have a significant adverse impact on businesses if a wrong judgment is made, with the best of intentions, based on information that is not complete at the time that a monitoring condition is applied. We could risk creating injustice, particularly if an order is granted against a company whose involvement was peripheral, not intended, not direct and almost without knowledge, even though the court may have been able to show that it should have taken some other action and that is why it is brought within the scope of the serious crime prevention order in the first place.
	New clause 1(6) deals with the tests for making serious crime prevention orders. The Minister will be familiar with our debates on Second Reading and in Committee about harm reduction versus punishment. He has said on many occasions, as I am sure he will say this afternoon and this evening, that the Bill is only about harm reduction—it is about preventing serious crime—and that it is not about punishment. One can form one's own judgment about whether that is the reality in the Bill, but subsection (6) raises interesting questions that deserve greater scrutiny.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman made a reasonable point about the application of new clause 1(6) to the new clause, but then made the wild assertion that it would apply to the serious crime prevention orders as a whole. If he reads further, he will see that it is limited to the new clause, and does not apply to the whole Bill.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on new clause 1. I echo the concerns that have just been expressed about the introduction of such wide-ranging and important provisions at this stage of our deliberations. We had opportunities for exhaustive discussion of the Bill in Committee, when we went through it in great detail, so it is alarming that new provisions are being introduced in this way.
	Three aspects of the new clause give me cause for concern, and I shall be interested in the Minister's response. The first is that the provision is extremely wide-ranging. It shines a light on a larger concern about the Bill as a whole, which is that there are conflicting stories about the number of people who will be caught up by the provisions.
	In Committee and in his speech today, the Minister was keen to stress that the provisions will apply to only a small number of people. Those assurances are not in writing in the Bill, but the background mood music is that we need not be overly concerned that the provisions will be routinely applied, as they will catch only a small number of particularly burdensome criminals. None the less, representations to me from agencies and others who are broadly supportive of the measure make much more extravagant claims about its impact on my constituents. If 30 or 40 people a year are caught up by the provisions, it is unlikely that any of them will be my constituents. Of course, there will be a knock-on effect in terms of the impact that is caused, but it would be interesting to know how many people are likely to be caught by these provisions. Although there is a point of principle, a matter of degree also applies, and so far, that is not at all clear.
	The second point that gives cause for concern is that the specific people are not defined in the Bill. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how, when such services are contracted out to various outside agencies, checks and balances will be in place to ensure that the powers are wielded responsibly and in way that would satisfy an elected representative, such as myself.
	The third issue that gives me cause for concern—I would be interested to hear the Minister's response—was raised by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and relates to the obligation on the subject of the order to pay the costs. That could be very serious sanction against someone who has not necessarily committed a criminal offence. I would be interested to know whether the Minister felt that there could be a cap on those costs. I ask him for more detail on how he thinks that will work in practice.

Vernon Coaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) for recognising the complexity of the Bill and for, quite frankly, the decent way in which he admitted that fact. Some of these provisions are very technical, complex and difficult. That is the reason, frankly, why some of these amendments are being debated on the Floor of the House. I make no apology, however, for introducing something that will significantly improve the Bill. It would be somewhat ridiculous if, because I might be embarrassed about the fact that the hon. Gentleman would complain about such late additions to the Bill, I did not introduce amendments that improve it and make a significant difference to it. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I apologise for the late introduction of new clause 1 and to the House for the lateness of some of the amendments, but I do not apologise for the fact that provisions, such as new clause 1, will make a significant difference and are significant improvements to the Bill, and it is therefore important that we debate them today.

Vernon Coaker: I do not know the answer to that, but the serious crime prevention order as laid out in the Bill should be available to the courts. That will be a matter for the courts, and it will be for the applicant authorities to go to the courts where they think it appropriate and where they think that a serious crime prevention order will seriously impact on crime. With respect to new clause 1, the inclusion of authorised monitors is important because it will make the serious crime prevention orders more effective, as they apply to businesses and organisations. Let me suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) that I would have thought that all of us are united in wanting to ensure that serious crime prevention orders imposed on businesses and organisations are enforced and made to work, so that we can all see that they have credibility, and the use of authorised monitors will ensure that the terms are agreed to and, importantly, complied with.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch talked about complexity. I said in my introductory remarks that businesses might want to use the complexity of the arrangements to hide accounts, transactions or what they are doing. That means that law enforcers will at times need the experience, ability, knowledge and skills of forensic accountants, who can scrutinise the accounts in a way that many law enforcers cannot. That means that the serious crime prevention order will prevent the serious crime that we are talking about. When such an order is made, we will be able to ensure that the terms are agreed with.
	He talked about the arrangements relating to costs. Of course, the courts will consider the costs when making an order. If the costs change, it is open to the subject to apply to the court for variations to the costs set out in the order.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a point about bodies knowing whether they are subject to an order. An organisation will either have to be represented at proceedings, or be sent a notice by recorded delivery or hand delivery, before the order takes effect, so they will have knowledge of the order and its terms. As he will remember, if an organisation's actions are reasonable, those actions cannot form the basis of a finding that it has acted in a way that has facilitated, or is likely to facilitate, serious crime. The burden is on the organisation to prove reasonableness, because the organisation is best-placed to know the background to its actions. If an applicant authority wants to make a body the subject of a serious crime prevention order, that body can use a defence of reasonableness in court. We went through that many times in Committee, as he knows. If the organisation can demonstrate that its actions were reasonable to the satisfaction of the courts, it will not be made the subject of a serious crime prevention order.
	As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is for the court to assess the evidence before it, as is the case for courts in all sorts of situations, and it is for the court to decide whether an organisation has acted reasonably under the group of new clauses that we are discussing. That is the protection against the injustice that the hon. Gentleman talked about.

Vernon Coaker: I shall begin with new clause 3. Under the civil recovery provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—POCA—it is not possible at an interim stage for there to be a receiver whose only function is to manage property while it is frozen. That is a problem because there are civil recovery cases in which a property freezing order, which only freezes property, is not enough, as the property cannot be managed.
	On the other hand, obtaining an interim receiving order, which freezes assets and requires the appointment of an independent receiver, would be too much and is unnecessary in some cases. That is because the independent receiver, known as an interim receiver, has management, investigation and reporting functions. Due to the investigative function, it is only right that the interim receiver should be independent from either party to the civil recovery proceedings, so that accusations of any bias in the case can be avoided.
	There is an identified operational need to create a new type of receiver whose only role is to manage property. Such a receiver would not have any investigatory or reporting functions; he or she could be a member of the staff of an enforcement authority, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency. In the Government's view, the creation of a civil recovery management receiver will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the civil recovery regime in the 2002 Act. It will result in significant savings as the primary expense in civil recovery cases is meeting the remuneration and expenses of an interim receiver. In particular, in-house management receivers would be much more cost-effective. The Assets Recovery Agency has a number of cases where the sums spent on the interim receivership already exceed the value of the assets it is pursuing. Such experience has inevitable consequences in terms of whether an enforcement authority would adopt a particular difficult case, which is likely to be protracted and therefore expensive, or opt for a lower-value and less complex case. We want to minimise such a resource consideration in the decision-making exercise of an enforcement authority on whether it should adopt a case for civil recovery.
	Other minor amendments are consequential on new clause 3. The other amendments in this group, which are also designed to support amendments that the Bill already makes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, relate to the disclosure of information and the delegation of the functions of the directors of the main prosecution agencies.
	Amendments Nos. 27 to 32, 35, 37 to 40, 49, 50 and 52 relate to the disclosure of information between the various agencies involved in the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime.

Vernon Coaker: That was an excellent question by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall require to give it some thought before I answer him. In all seriousness, I think that I had better take some advice before I tell him something that is inaccurate and misleading.
	With the exception of its training and accreditation functions, the Assets Recovery Agency is to be merged into the Serious Organised Crime Agency under clause 72. The Assets Recovery Agency is currently the one body in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that undertakes civil recovery investigations and proceedings to recover the proceeds of crime. This civil recovery role will now transfer effectively to SOCA, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. In order to support these and other functions carried out under the 2002 Act by the director of the Assets Recovery Agency, there is provision in part 10 of the Act for the disclosure of information to and by the director. The main group of amendments make similar provision to part 10 to allow for the new bodies to be able to receive and disclose information to assist them in these, and other, functions. Amendments are either made to the parent legislation of the prosecution bodies where they already have what are known as information gateway provisions, or they create a new set of provisions for those organisations that do not have such legislative gateways. The flow of information is vital to ensure the success of the civil recovery regime in taking away the proceeds of crime. The usual safeguards and established practices and procedures are followed in the provisions to prevent any actual misuse of information or accusation of misuse.
	Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 36 provide for a more effective and broad ability for the directors of the main prosecution agencies to be able to delegate their functions. The Bill confers the functions of civil recovery investigations and proceedings on to the directors. The operational reality will be that the respective directors will either delegate to their staff or contract out these functions. The amendments ensure a suitable level of flexibility in that process.
	Amendments Nos. 14, 24, 33, 34, 41, 48, 51 and 53 are minor consequential amendments reflecting the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency. For example, the reference to that agency is to be omitted from schedule 1 to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

Vernon Coaker: There are two ways in which we hope to take the matter forward. It is important to recognise that the courts should be encouraged, where someone has been criminally prosecuted for an offence, to place an confiscation order on them when that person is found guilty. We also hope that the civil recovery powers available can be used in exactly the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend has laid out. Throughout the Bill, we want to ensure that those who profit from crime lose those profits they have made, whether they are the so-called Mr. Bigs or the people to whom my hon. Friend has referred, who cause havoc and mayhem in many of our communities. With that I commend the new clause to the House, with the added reassurance to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) that I will return in due course to the points he made.

James Brokenshire: The new clause effectively provides additional provisions relating to freezing orders, which come under section 245A and the subsequent sections contained within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those additional orders were introduced under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and apply only in certain circumstances where proceedings are under way to recover the proceeds of unlawful conduct. The freezing orders need to describe the property concerned and prohibit any person to whom that order applies from dealing with the property. As we said when the freezing order was introduced, it plays an important part in ensuring that we bear down on organised criminals who may be intent on misusing proceeds of crime, and in ensuring that such proceeds are recovered. We have stated on record that the orders are a good thing, and therefore, the gap that the Minister has highlighted is relevant.
	In the Minister's letter to me, and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), he states:
	"The amendments I have tabled to the Proceeds of Crime provisions in Part 3 of the Bill will create a Civil Recovery Management Receiver. Creating these receivers will fill a legislative gap as it is not currently possible to have a receiver whose only function in civil recovery proceedings is to manage property while it is frozen. Civil Recovery Management Receivers will provide this function."
	There is clearly a gap, and it is interesting that it has taken a little while for it to become apparent and for us to be made aware of it through the consideration of the provisions in the new clause.
	The proposal seems sensible because one of the concerns that arises in relation to frozen assets—the Minister alluded to this point—is that, when ensuring full proceeds are received, it may be necessary to manage assets while they are frozen to ensure that they do not diminish in value, and that the funds obtainable are as full as they should be. I recognise the intent behind the provision and the gap to which the Minister refers in his letter. It needs filling to ensure that we get the full proceeds required, and that there is no diminution in the value of the assets subject to the freezing order.
	We understand the context of the new clause and the point that the Minister makes. We hope that it will act to ensure that the proceeds of crime are realised in a more effective way, that the value of those assets is maximised through the procedures and process undertaken, and that the issue is dealt with appropriately.
	The Government have also tabled many other amendments, which are largely technical. I want to concentrate on amendment No. 27, which deals with section 435 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The section originally ensured that the director of the Assets Recovery Agency could use the information that he obtained in the exercise of one set of functions in connection with any of his other functions. In other words, under the 2002 Act, the director could use information gained for one purpose in another context.
	When the Bill was in Committee, the Government tried to delete section 435 from the 2002 Act. The measure before us reflects that. However, amendment No. 27 would reintroduce section 435, but in a modified fashion. The amendment would expand the scope and application of the Bill. Proposed new section 435 would apply especially to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.
	The relevant point about the proposed new section is that it provides that the relevant Director—of Public Prosecutions, of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or of the Serious Fraud Office—can use information obtained under part 5 or part 8 of the 2002 Act,
	"in connection with his exercise of any of his other functions (whether under, or in relation to, either Part, another Part of this Act or otherwise)."
	I am concerned about the extent and scope of "or otherwise". Perhaps, when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he can confirm whether it is intended to have a much broader application than the original section 435—in other words, whether "or otherwise" covers all the relevant duties of the directors in all their contexts.
	Clearly, amendment No. 27 is another late amendment. A change of approach was felt to be required to section 435 of the 2002 Act, given that it was meant to be deleted, not used, at the outset. It would be interesting if the Under-Secretary shed some light on the reason for the change of approach. Why is the sharing of information felt to be required now when it was not believed to be necessary previously?
	I appreciate that the amendment's application to several different bodies reflects the way in which the Assets Recovery Agency has been divided—its authorisations do not go to only one body but several different ones. From an enforcement perspective, the relevant directors to which subsection (4) of proposed new section 435 applies reflect the intended expansion of the enforcement agencies and bodies. However, there remains a question about whether the amendment proposes an appropriate or reasonable use or expansion of the previous power, which would have been limited to those under the 2002 Act.
	The proposed new section is much more wide ranging—there appears to be no limit on the use to which information gained under the 2002 Act can be put. That may be appropriate for ensuring that illegal acts or information relevant to other prosecutions and proceedings are discovered through the powers granted by the 2002 Act. However, it is a change to the previous position and it would therefore be helpful to inform the House of the intention of the proposed new section. Is it intended to be all encompassing? Are any protections intended? Will any limits be applied? Is the amendment as wide ranging as the words "or otherwise" suggest?
	We need to understand more clearly the Under-Secretary's intention in amendment No. 27. We need to know its scope and I hope that he can answer the points that have been highlighted because it would be helpful to know the extent of the information-sharing powers and the use to which the information will be put so that we can properly understand the exact purpose of amendment No. 27.

Vernon Coaker: That is certainly one change. Both the existing scenarios will require written authorisation and will not be able to be subject to an oral authorisation, but in circumstances involving the reaction to an incident that has taken place, the approval would be able to be given orally and followed up by written authorisation.
	Another situation in which this proposal might apply could involve the police believing that a weapon such as a knife had been passed on to someone else. The police might not be searching for the perpetrator, whom people might already have identified. Eye witnesses might have said that the person in blue jeans and a red jumper had done it, but he might have passed the weapon on to someone else. In those circumstances, the power to stop-and-search without reasonable suspicion of others would be a useful addition to the police's powers to locate the weapon.

Vernon Coaker: I am receiving different advice, in the sense that, in the new scenario involving a reaction to an event that has taken place, speed will be of the essence. We shall need to be very careful indeed about requiring oral, rather than written, authorisation. That is why we are not proposing to change the requirement for written authorisation in circumstances involving prevention in relation to the two scenarios that already exist.
	As I have said, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this extended power will provide the police with a useful additional tool in the fight against crime involving knives, guns and other weapons. Amendment No. 85 provides that the new clause should extend to England and Wales. We will work with the Scotland Office to consider how equivalent legislation should be taken forward in respect of firearms in Scotland, as the subject matter of the firearms legislation that includes search powers is reserved. However, the policing of offensive weapons, including knives and bladed instruments, is devolved. Amendment No. 86 amends the long title of the Bill to reflect the addition of this clause on stop-and-search powers.
	New Clause 8 concerns police powers of stop-and-search for knives, guns and other offensive weapons. It would repeal section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and create a new clause in this Bill that would largely replicate it, with some changes to the way in which the powers it contains may be exercised. It is not clear to me why this approach has been taken of repealing and recreating, rather than amending, section 60.
	Section 60 provides the police with powers to authorise the stopping and searching of persons for knives and offensive weapons—which, in England and Wales, would include firearms intended to cause injury—without requiring reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying such a weapon, in a locality where a serious violence incident is anticipated or where the police believe that persons are carrying weapons.
	The new clause proposes some changes to section 60 in its current form: to lower the rank of the police officer who may make an authorisation—a sergeant would be able to make an authorisation for six hours, an inspector for 24; to add two additional considerations which must be taken into account when extending the period of the authorisation; and to allow for an authorisation to be made orally, rather than in writing, in the first instance. There are also some less significant technical changes to the application of the powers, and to some definitions contained in the clauses.
	The purpose of the new clause seems to be to increase the operational flexibility with which the police can make use of these powers, by ensuring that officers can respond to intelligence more proactively, and quickly make an authorisation under section 60 to prevent a violent incident from occurring. I have sympathy for the objectives of the new clause, and I agree that we should ensure the police have all the powers they need to tackle weapon-enabled crime, and that they should be able to make the most effective use of these powers operationally.
	As I have said, I commend the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for Taunton (Mr. Browne) for their measured approach, following the concerns expressed on both sides when a related amendment was removed from the Bill in Committee. In my view, however, the changes to the existing section 60 do not amount to very much, and add little of substance to the existing powers. The amendment that I have tabled to section 60 will increase the flexibility with which the power can be exercised in circumstances where a serious violent incident has occurred, by allowing for an authorisation to be made orally. I do not propose to change the other safeguards concerning the rank of the officer who may make an authorisation, and its duration, as I feel that they are important to ensure that the powers are used in a proportionate way.

James Brokenshire: There can be little doubt about the appalling consequences of violent crime and the need for appropriate measures, such as stop and search, to help prevent it from happening. The headlines this year have been dominated all too frequently with news of victims of gun and knife-related violence. What has been particularly disturbing has been the age of the victims of these tragedies. The Minister made reference to a number of cases and I share with him strong feelings of condolence for the families and disturbance about the issues that these cases highlight. The murder of 11-year-old Rhys Jones, who was shot on his way home from football training in Croxteth, shocked the entire country. It put into sharp focus the urgent need to face up to violent crime and deal with gang culture, which acts like a cancer, destroying the lives of individuals, families and communities in too many of our communities across the country.
	In 1998-99, 864 people were injured or killed using a gun; whereas by 2005-06, the number had increased to 3,821—a fourfold increase. A study by the centre for crime and justice studies at King's college, London found that attacks in which a knife was used in a successful mugging have risen from 25,500 in 2005 to 64,000 in the year running up to April 2007. Home Office research has shown that firearms are on sale in the criminal underworld for as little as £50, with polling commissioned by Policy Exchange indicating that nearly one in eight men know someone who has or has had an illegal firearm and that nearly a fifth of men say they would be able to acquire an illegal firearm. As for knives, according to a poll conducted for the Youth Justice Board in 2004, 28 per cent. of young people in mainstream schools had carried a knife in the last year.
	In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Superintendent Leroy Logan, deputy borough commander in Hackney, described a situation of
	"growing incidents of gratuitous violence committed by younger age groups...predominantly among themselves with an increasing use of weapons in an attempt to gain respect through violence."
	The Committee also heard of the escalation of violence from young people, with one young person saying:
	"It has just escalated over the years and it has just got to the point where no-one is picking up fists, everyone is picking up guns. That is why it has just got so bad."
	The clear indication is that there is a growing prevalence of offensive weapons in our community and, sadly, a willingness of some to use them. Some have even described the possession of guns as a "fashion accessory". The situation is compounded by new routes of supply through the sale of weapons over the internet, for example, underlining the need for us to make our borders less porous and more secure. That is why it is right, in the context of the Bill, to consider the scope, adequacy and fitness for purpose of the current law relating to stop and search as part of wider measures to combat violent crime and the underlying causes of offending.
	During the Bill's passage through the other place, Lord Marlesford successfully moved an amendment introducing a right for a police constable to seal off an area and to search people and vehicles in that area for firearms by whatever means he considers appropriate, if he has reason to believe that people in that area may be carrying firearms.
	The noble Lord said that the purpose of the amendment was to give the police
	"a simple and over-riding power which would enable them to make it far more risky for anyone to carry an illegal firearm".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2007; Vol. 691, c. 917.]
	In Committee, however, the Government removed Lord Marlesford's amendment, following which I made it clear that we would reflect on the proposal, which we have now done.
	The two main existing statutory powers of stop and search are found in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There are also additional provisions in the Firearms Act 1968 and the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 1 of PACE allows a police officer to stop and search a person in a public place for offensive weapons and other items. However, the power applies only where that police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that he or she will find such items. Those terms are further clarified in the codes of practice that sit alongside PACE.
	Under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, to which the Government new clause relates, an officer of inspector rank and above has the right to authorise officers to stop and search people and vehicles within a specific locality for a period of up to 24 hours if they "reasonably believe" that crimes of serious violence may occur or that someone is carrying an offensive weapon. That authorisation can be extended by a further 24 hours with the consent of an officer of superintendent rank or above. It is important to note that this power may be exercised without the requirement of reasonable suspicion that would otherwise be needed under PACE.
	We believe that there is a need to make an important change to the powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. We propose to create a new right for officers of the full rank of sergeant to authorise the stop and search of pedestrians and vehicles in a specific area for a period of up to six hours, if they reasonably believe either that incidents of serious violence may occur or that people are carrying guns, knives or other offensive weapons in that area. That authorisation could be extended to a maximum of 48 hours by further direction of an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. In addition, an officer of the rank of inspector or above would have an initial authorisation of 24 hours, capable of extension to 48 hours. New clause 8 gives effect to that.
	The new measure has three intended purposes. It is intended to add a new preventive power to law enforcement, to help stamp out possession of illegal weapons and prevent violent crime from happening; to give police at operational level more flexibility to respond to intelligence and potentially fast-moving situations; and to underline the importance of community policing, anchored by the police sergeant, and help develop confidence within the neighbourhoods and areas served by the local teams.
	We believe that this is a practical, common-sense change that will help the police to combat gun and knife crime within local communities. It is supported by the Police Federation. It is all about strengthening community policing on the ground, where the beat or neighbourhood sergeant has a key role. The sergeant is likely to have a closer connection with local issues and local people, and we think that that should be recognised within the framework, constraints and protection of the existing stop-and-search power under section 60. The new clause also underlines the importance of community-based solutions as part of wider measures to tackle violent crime and social breakdown.
	We believe that a six-hour authorisation for sergeants is appropriate and proportionate to give greater assurance to the public in the fight to stamp out illegal weapons on the street. We believe that it can help to make a difference in preventing serious violent incidents, and that it contrasts with the approach of a Government who remain in denial about the extent and nature of the problem.
	As the Minister said, the Government believe that their new clause 9 will fill a small gap. Although—as our interventions have demonstrated—we do not oppose the proposed changes in principle, it is difficult to see that they will add very much. The Government argue that the changes are needed to help police to recover and apprehend the assailant when a serious act of violence has taken place but there is no belief that further such acts will take place, and that they provide the potential for an oral authorisation invoking the section 60 power. However, authorisation under section 60 can already be invoked if there is a reasonable belief that persons are carrying offensive weapons in the stop-and-search area. If the new power is to enable officers to try to get hold of the weapon following a serious incident and catch the perpetrator in possession of it, officers must have the reasonable belief that someone is carrying an offensive weapon in that area. That means that the second limb of section 60 could be applied. As for oral authorisation, as I have said, section 60(9) already contemplates that an authorisation may be recorded in writing later when the giving of a written authorisation is not practicable, and as such it already envisages an oral authorisation. However, if it is felt that clarification of the law is helpful, we will take that into account.

James Brokenshire: That is not clear from the wording of section 60(9), but, as I have said, I am happy to take on board any clarifications that are considered helpful. My general point is that I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument that the proposal in new clause 9 is as significant as he has suggested.
	We believe that new clause 8 is proportionate and reasonable, and that as part of a framework of measures it will help to take weapons off our streets and make our communities safer places in which to live. As for whether the Government will feel persuaded to adopt our idea later and we will gain a new "magpie Minister", we shall have to wait and see, but this is a serious and considered proposal. It provides an addition to the law which we believe will make an important contribution in helping to prevent serious crime, which is supposed to be at the heart of the Bill. It is intended to help in the fight against gun crime, knife crime and other crimes of serious violence, in which one victim is one victim too many. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to put it to the vote, and that it will receive the backing of the House.

Keith Vaz: Let me begin by saying that this is no "magpie Minister" but an eagle, willing to swoop down and deal with all the dreadful criminals who are engaged in such awful behaviour.
	I think we all share the concerns that have been expressed by both my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) about the high-profile crimes that were committed in the summer this year: crimes such as the one against Rhys Jones which have literally shocked the nation. Although crime has been falling, it is right for the Government to try to ensure—especially in this Bill—that the police are given sufficient powers to be able to deal with an increase in serious crime. It is also right for that to be done in this place, and for us to debate the issues.
	I think the Minister will find that there is all-party agreement about the need for us to give the police the powers that they need. However, I want to strike a note of caution over the proposals for extension of stop-and-search powers. I will not oppose the Government, because I believe that the thrust of what the Minister has said is correct, but I ask him to bear in mind a number of key facts, and I hope he will do so with the care with which I have always associated him.
	The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) served on the Home Affairs Committee before I became its Chairman, and participated diligently in a report on young black men and crime which was published in the summer. The Government's response arrived last Wednesday, within the time limit of two months but at a time when the Committee was abroad taking evidence on counter-terrorism. Nevertheless, it addresses the Committee's concerns.
	On the issue of stop-and-search specifically, the Committee's view is clear. Although there are benefits in giving the police additional powers, the Committee concluded unanimously that they were outweighed by the implications for the community trust and co-operation that the police need if they are to do their jobs effectively. That is, I think, the key fact.
	Our debate has been enlivened by the comments of Keith Jarrett, chairman of the National Black Police Association, who said over the weekend, in an open and transparent way, that he considered it important for the powers to be extended because that would give the police a better way of reaching those who commit crimes. I disagree with that view, as do other members of the association. I think that we need to look at the factual information before deciding to increase any powers. I have received no representations suggesting that the community want more stop-and-search powers because they would result in more people being apprehended; nor, I think, did the Committee during its extensive inquiry, which included the taking of evidence from young black people themselves. It is right that there should be engagement, and both the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the Minister, in their measured responses to this problem, pointed out the need for us to work within the community. Neither of them specifically said that the community itself was calling for increased powers.
	It is worth examining the statistics to get a brief flavour of the facts that have emerged as a result of the police use of stop and search. In 2004-05, 839,977 persons were stopped and searched and 12,400 stops of vehicles were recorded by the police under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other legislation. Of those, 118,165 or 14 per cent. were of black people; 59,954 or 7 per cent. were of people of Asian origin; and 12,733 or 1.5 per cent. were of people of other ethnic origins. For England and Wales as a whole, the number of stop and searches rose by 14 per cent., from 737,137 in 2003-04 to 839,977, although that was less than the figure in 2002-03. Most of the rise was accounted for by an increase in the stopping and searching of people who were not black or Asian.
	Overall, black people were six times more likely to be searched than those who were not black—the ratio in 2003-04 was 6.4 times; if the figures for London are excluded, the ratio falls to 4.9 times. Asian people were 1.8 times as likely to be stopped and searched as white people, compared with 1.9 times as likely in the previous year. The important fact is that 11 per cent. of stop and searches resulted in an arrest. The proportion varied between police forces, from 7 per cent. in Gwent to 20 per cent. in the City of London. The problem facing us, which was correctly identified in the Select Committee report, is that the hit rate was still too low. People are prepared to accept an extension of powers if the hit rate will be improved or increased, but there was no indication from the Minister that that would happen as a result of what he proposes.
	We need to be cautious about the impact of this proposal. The hon. Member for Hornchurch, in his usual eloquent way, talked about proportionality. It is the big buzz word whenever we discuss such an issue, be it the 28-day detention period or another civil liberties matter, and it becomes extremely important. That is why I ask the Minister to examine the impact that the proposal will have on the black community. It is not right that we should have a certain set of laws that will result only in certain types of people being affected by an increase in police powers. It is important that we examine those figures.
	In conclusion, I accept the thrust of what both Front-Bench spokespeople say, although I do not support new clause 8, because it is not right when dealing with such serious issues that we should level down the rank of the person making the important decisions. The Minister is right to say that that should be kept at a certain policing level, because the difficulty of levelling it down is that things will increase. We need people of sufficient seniority to be able to deal with these important issues. He says that his proposal will help in the fight against serious crime, and I believe him, because he would not have brought the measure before the House unless he had felt that it would help in the fight against crime. However, I ask him to examine the impact on communities, because once we start stigmatising communities in our country we shall be on the road to ruin for our multicultural society.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the clarification. So were the Conservatives' policy to be implemented, no form would be required on stopping and questioning an individual, but if they were searched by a junior officer it would require putting in writing. It was worth clarifying that point, because the impression created by the Conservative Front Benchers is that all the paperwork is terribly burdensome and were they ever again in a position to implement policy, they would do away with all those burdens that the police find so irksome on occasion. However, that is not what new clause 8 says. I suppose that they have managed to achieve the objective of satisfying the public that the powers will not be widely used while also satisfying those who are concerned about civil liberties.
	To highlight a concern for people who take civil liberties seriously, I wish to refer to two written answers that I have received this year. On 17 April, the Government confirmed that there were 41,300 incidences of stop and search in 2005, and that represents a 94 per cent. increase in the past 10 years. On 16 October, the Government confirmed that there had been a fourfold increase in the number of people stopped under the Terrorism Act 2000, to 32,062 in 2004-05. I draw the Minister's attention to the scale of that activity. To extend the scope of stop and search and the circumstances in which it can be used will not automatically imply that more people will be stopped and searched. It may mean that the power is used with greater targeting, accuracy and effect, and for the sake of everyone who is concerned about gun and knife crime, I hope that that is the case.

Geoffrey Cox: The power to stop and search randomly is a power that should be exercised with the greatest of care. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made some telling points about the sensitivity that the exercise of such an apparently random power requires, especially in communities where ethnic minorities predominate. There is no doubt that in the past the power has been exercised without the necessary sensitivity, and that has caused considerable resentment in many of the communities that have been exposed to it.
	There is also no doubt, however, that we are faced with an unprecedented situation. Serious violent crime is rising. The prevalence of the use of knives on our streets is a phenomenon that is growing alarmingly. We can all cite anecdotal evidence of the use of knives at increasingly younger ages. The law enforcement authorities are faced with the impossibility of preventing the use of knives on our streets with ever diminishing inhibition by ever younger perpetrators.
	It is in those circumstances that we have heard voices recently drawing to our attention the need for greater powers for the police to be able to stop and search. It is important to recall that the powers that are exercisable under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 can be exercised only if an inspector has decided that he has reasonable grounds to suspect that a serious violent incident may take place in a particular locality or that in that particular locality there are grounds to suspect that someone is carrying a dangerous weapon.
	It is important to carry out the kind of community relations and consultation of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is important to get across to those communities that when the police use the power that they were given under the 1994 Act, they are doing it to protect the public, including not only those who have not been stopped, but those who have been stopped and are innocent. It is not always done with the necessary sensitivity. The right hon. Gentleman may have had experience, in a professional capacity, as I certainly have, of incidences of stop and search that have not been carried out with the sensitivity required. However, it is vital that we should remember that that critical power is used to protect all members of society, including vulnerable members of the public who are at risk from those wielding those types of weapons.
	We must start from the position that the House has conferred, in carefully safeguarded circumstances, an important power on the police. We have to ask whether we have reached a situation in which we need to consider a limited—and also carefully safeguarded—extension of that power. I believe that we have reached that position. The tide of violence that seems to be sweeping our streets among not even adults, but children, needs some measure of response. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his impressive contribution, it must be a measured and limited extension. That is why the Government's intention in the amendment is understandable and laudable. They propose a narrow extension. They wish to clarify the law so that there is no doubt that, where a serious violent incident has taken place, a police officer of the rank of inspector may say, "I have reasonable grounds to believe that somebody may be carrying the weapon that has been used in that incident, therefore I shall authorise random stop and search powers, in the interests of detecting crime." Note that it is for the purpose of detecting crime, not preventing it.
	The provision relates not to preventing crime but to detecting it, so having reflected on what the Minister said, I can see that there may be some value in a clarification of the law, because it must be arguable that the law already extends to that situation. Equally, no doubt, I can imagine—I blush to confess it—a member of my profession advancing to a learned judge the proposition that the statute is plainly intended for the prevention of crime, not the detection of crime, so to purport to exercise the power under the provision is unlawful.
	The new clause clarifies the law. It does not really extend the law, as the power may already exist, but makes it clear that the law can be used for the detection of crime, not merely for the prevention of crime under the proposal. The serious violent incident could have taken place some days previously; there seems to be no proximity of time and perhaps the Minister could assist me on that point in his closing remarks. The provision does not seem to require there to be any proximity in time between the serious violent incident and the authorisation of the stop and search power. The serious violence could have taken place some months beforehand, but if the officer conceives that the weapon used in the incident is in a particular place, he can authorise the use of stop and search.
	Such clarification may be useful, but I urge the Minister to reflect on the fact that the time may have come for a measured extension of the power and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) proposes just such a measured extension. My constituency covers a large rural area, which includes five or six market towns many miles distant from a major conurbation. Their police stations are often manned not by inspectors, but by sergeants. If there is disorder in a market town or a large village—such disorders can occur even in small villages—the sergeant will be faced with the decision about the police reaction to that disorder. It may thus be valuable to permit the sergeant, without seeking out his inspector who may be 50 miles away and have no real knowledge of the circumstances that led to the sergeant wanting to take the action, to authorise for a limited period of time—we propose six hours—the use of the stop and search power. It must be remembered, however, that the officer can do so only if he has reasonable grounds to believe that a serious violent incident may be committed or that a person is carrying a dangerous offensive weapon. In far-flung rural areas, such as the one I represent, entrusting that power to a sergeant, who may be in charge of the police station in which he is based, could be a valuable and useful measure.
	Our proposal could be valuable and it is worthy of serious reflection. It would invite, I respectfully submit to the Minister, wide consensus and it is not to be dismissed out of hand.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recounting that story. What was the explanation given by the police as to why he was stopped?

Charles Walker: First, the officer asked whether I had been drinking, to which I replied that I had not had a drink for three and a half years. I asked why he had pulled me over and he said that my driving was erratic. I disagreed with that. Then he said, "And you were following the speed limit all the time we were behind you." I explained that as the local Member of Parliament I tend not to speed in my constituency as I do not want tickets. I was also told that I came under suspicion because I approached a roundabout at 20 mph because most people do so at between 30 to 40 mph.
	There is a place for the proposed laws, but we need to make sure that they are applied sensitively and that we do not alienate members of the community whom we need on our side. If we are to tackle the appalling rates of gun and knife crime, it must be a community-wide exercise. We cannot rely on the police to do it for us, because if we do so, they will surely fail. We need to involve community leaders, parents and schools. They have the power to reach young people at an early age and set them on the right path, to teach them the difference between right and wrong.
	These laws alone will not end gun and knife crime. When they come into force, gun crime and knife crime will not fall quickly or automatically. The laws are part of a template; they are building blocks for reducing gun and knife crime, but to do so we need fully to engage our communities and the people who can and do reach young minds to ensure that they choose the right path and make the right decisions.
	It is not just that the young lives of those who are killed so tragically are snuffed out; the perpetrators of those crimes are affected, too. Often they are young people or children—almost babies. As soon as they use a knife or a gun their life, in effect, is over, too. It is important that the House understands that the issue is deeply complex. All parties must work together to ensure that over the next decade we have a happier story to tell than over the past decade.

Vernon Coaker: I thank all Opposition Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for an excellent debate. It would be easy in such debates for hon. Members on both sides of the House to grandstand, to try to grab headlines and to make the easy speech. However, as Opposition Members and my right hon. Friend have said, this issue cannot be solved by headline-grabbing or populist measures, but requires a menu of different things to be done that includes all the various options available to us.
	No one can fail to have been moved by the families involved, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), my right hon. Friend and, indeed, all hon. Members have met some of them and seen the consequences of what we are talking about: real communities, real families and real young people, whose lives have been devastated by this sort of violent crime.
	If I could do one thing at the Dispatch Box that meant that no one would be shot or stabbed and that there would be no violence at all on our streets, I would do it: I would pass that measure or seek to ensure that the House passed it tomorrow. Indeed, if any hon. Member had a magic wand that could immediately bring an end to all that violence, he or she would surely wave it. In fact, the debate has demonstrated that the solution and the progress that must be made will come about through steady actions, and the Government have taken a number of them. I want to mention a few of those actions before I address some of the comments made by Members.
	The Government have recognised that this is not only a matter of enforcing and strengthening the law; there are other solutions, although, of course, enforcing the law has an important part to play. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) mentioned the mandatory minimum five-year sentence, about which there are concerns, although the length of sentence for the possession of firearms has increased from 12.1 months in 2004 to 47.3 months. Again, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for the supply of guns to be prioritised, and Customs has agreed to make tackling the supply of guns a priority for the first time. Customs will therefore generate fresh intelligence on gun supply and prioritise suspected trafficking cases—another step forward that we have taken.
	Prevention is also vital. Every hon. Member who spoke in the debate not only talked about the enforcement of the law and the tough measures that need to be taken, but pointed out that prevention is crucial and that the work that takes places in communities is essential. Every Member will have been to different communities and seen the work of community groups. Surely, if we have to do one thing, it is to empower community organisations and groups in the affected areas to take the required action.
	We are looking at what more we can do to support organisations, such as Boyhood to Manhood, which works particularly well in Southwark to extend positive role models for young people, and Mothers Against Guns and Mothers Against Violence—run by people who have used the horror of what has happened to their own family to try to ensure that it does not happen to others. We are considering what we can do for street pastors—people who, through the power of their faith, go out on the streets to take action against some of the problems that we have seen.
	Let me share just one experience when I was out with the street pastors in Brixton recently, dealing with problems on the street. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I imagined that all the street pastors would be 6 ft 6—all built a bit like the England rugby pack.  [ Interruption . ] It is good example, but an unfortunate result. In fact, when an incident arose, the person who went over and dealt with it was a 78-year-old grandmother. The young people she spoke to respected and valued her. If we could only harness such power, we could do more to prevent crime. It is not only about enforcement or tackling the supply of guns, but about prevention and working with communities. As we have heard, it is also about trying to encourage witnesses to come forward, protecting them and giving them confidence.
	There is no headline solution to the problem; there is only a solution that needs us all to take step-by-step action to cover all aspects of that problem. The hon. Member for Taunton said that we need to address the broad issues, not just those of stop and search. Given the points that I have made, I hope that he will feel that some progress is being made to ensure that there is not a one-club solution—it is not just either/or—but that all those issues taken together will ensure that a broad strategy is implemented that can make a real difference.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, whom I have known for a number of years, for pointing out that, whatever the decisions that we make about stop-and-search powers, we need to recognise both that we can only make progress with caution and that very real problems exist—the disproportionality to which he referred. It is worth repeating, as he did, that black people are six times more likely to be stopped. If we are to be effective and proportionate, we must take account of such statistics and ensure that we do more to inspire confidence among those people that the powers that we may give to our police will not be used disproportionately.

Vernon Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. We will, of course, ensure—I give him this commitment—that in extending these powers, as we hope to do under new clause 9, we speak to the police and reinforce the need for proportionality in everything that we do. Indeed, as he will know, that was one of the reasons why we set up the stop-and-search action team, to try to address both disproportionality and to assist forces in making arrangements to record stops and to ensure that stop-and-search powers are properly implemented by the police.
	The gist of the debate is that we all agree that stop-and-search powers need to be revisited at times. We need to ensure that our laws work effectively. However, I tell the hon. Member for Hornchurch that my key objection, which is supported by the hon. Member for Taunton and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, is our concern about lowering the rank of officer who can authorise stop and searches. We are not persuaded that that would be the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), in most areas that I visit across the country, both urban and rural, the local area commander—the person responsible for the delivery of neighbourhood policing—is the local inspector. In the first instance, the local inspector is the most appropriate person to determine the initial authorisation.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, who made a good speech, agreed with the action that the Government are taking and believed that it would clarify the law on extending stop-and-search powers to something that happens after a violent incident has taken place, so that we can detect crime, thus enhancing the existing powers that are intended to prevent crime. He asked us to keep the various stop-and- search measures under review at all times, and to keep under consideration the points made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. I said in my introductory remarks that we will always keep the various powers that are available under review to ensure that the law is good, and that improvements are made where necessary.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon asked me whether there is any need for proximity in time. There is no such requirement in the new clause, but the new powers should be used as close to the time of the incident as is possible. The hon. Member for Broxbourne talked about the need to ensure balance in the law. He made an important point. In everything that we do with respect to stop and search, we recognise that we are talking about an extension of the power and an erosion of civil liberties. In the main, that is done to try to ensure that we prevent crime and protect our communities—something that we all wish to do. The Government new clause offers a further way of protecting the public, but it does so in a proportionate and considered way. I urge the House to support it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I present to the House new clause 5, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends; amendment No. 83 is consequential to it. Through its long title, the Bill offers us the opportunity of looking at the working of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to which the Government have proposed minor amendments. RIPA, as it is known, is an extremely controversial statute. It was introduced to provide an overarching framework under which material could be obtained by Government agencies for a number of purposes set out in the legislation.
	The argument was that by setting out an overarching structure, we would simplify existing rules, which provide law enforcement agencies with a variety of powers to obtain data communications material. I should make it clear that historically there has been absolutely no doubt that such material is required by law enforcement agencies. RIPA followed on—this is rather an important aspect of the matter—from the anti-terrorism measures of 2000, in which the Government came to a voluntary agreement with service providers that the Government would retain data for counter-terrorism purposes. However, when RIPA came on to the statute book, it became apparent that far from being confined to the purposes of anti-terrorism, the material—which, under that voluntary agreement, was retained for 12 months—would be made available for a much wider range of uses. Those uses included not only the ones that one might normally expect for preventing crime, but use in connection with
	"the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom",
	and
	"the purpose of protecting public health",
	as well as public safety, emergencies, collecting taxes and, most significantly of all,
	"for any purpose...which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State",
	even if that purpose was not included in the main body of RIPA's text.
	RIPA specified a number of public authorities whose inclusion most Members would regard as absolutely straightforward—police forces, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and intelligence services—but in addition it provided a catch-all phrase, which allowed the inclusion of
	"any such public authority not falling within"
	the list
	"as may be specified...by the Secretary of State."
	Since then, if my research is correct, three statutory instruments have been made by the Government, producing an extremely long list of public authorities that may gain access to such material for a variety of purposes.
	Again, it might be said in this House that some of the inclusions are understandable; for example, the emergency services are included, for the purposes of investigating crime—in that case, I think that the crime is likely to be hoax calls. However, the list goes on to include the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, Home Office immigration services, county and district councils, the Charity Commission, the Environment Agency, the Gaming Board, the Information Commissioner, universal service providers—that is essentially the Post Office—and the Postal Services Commission. And the list goes on.
	The vast majority of the bodies listed are included for the purposes of detecting or preventing crime, but that prompts the question whether it is a proportionate use of RIPA's draconian powers to apply them to such purposes. The criminality that a large number of the organisations mentioned are likely to investigate is not of the most serious kind. Let us take as an example the Health and Safety Executive, which our new clause would preserve in the list. I have prosecuted quite frequently for the HSE, and I accept that there may be times when, in the course of bringing a prosecution, getting hold of data relating to telephone calls that a person might have made could be useful, but the irony is that that power has always existed for use in the course of criminal proceedings. If someone thinks that they will need such material, they can always apply to the judge during the proceedings, and that applies to every single one of the organisations with which we are concerned.
	What the Government have done is provide a general power, not for the purposes of prosecuting a case, but for background investigation of the activities of individuals, where that might be necessary for the prevention of crime. It is also noteworthy that at least one of the powers in RIPA—that in clause 28(3)(c), which relates to
	"the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom"—
	has, as far as I am aware, never been used. Its use would be a rather controversial subject, particularly if it was not linked to criminality.
	When the original RIPA rules were presented in Committee upstairs, there was a storm of protest, particularly because the Government introduced the rules, and had the debate, before the publication of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which highlighted the fact that it thought that many of the powers being granted might well not pass the proportionality test, if they were challenged. Of course, one of the problems that we have is that challenging the powers is difficult, because most people will never know that they have been investigated, and that the powers have been used. Of course, the Information Commissioner can look into those matters, but individuals may well have their privacy invaded without ever being able to protest, because they will never have known about it.
	In view of that, we thought it right to try to encourage the Government to revisit the issue during the passage of the Bill. New clause 5 is designed to allow just that. It preserves the inclusion of the public authorities that were originally provided for in RIPA—police forces, intelligence services and the like—but would merely add:
	"(g) an ambulance service or fire authority;
	(h) the Health and Safety Executive"—
	because we recognise that public safety cases may require such investigation—
	"(i) the Serious Fraud Office"
	and, most importantly,
	"(j) any such other public authority not falling within"
	the list that I gave
	"carrying out duties of a similar type".
	The purpose is to restrict the further list of public authorities essentially to the normal law enforcement agencies, and not, as is the case under the Bill, progressively to widen the scope, with the distinct possibility—and this is the most worrying prospect—that it could be further widened in future simply by statutory instrument.
	Recently, RIPA's entire architecture has been subject criticism, as the Minister will know, by a roundabout route. As a result of an EU directive implemented by the Government, the voluntary agreement on the retention of material has become permanent with the service suppliers, and the Government now have access through the EU directive to the information to which they had access under that agreement. That raises an interesting issue—and I hope that the Minister can answer this point—as we introduced a voluntary agreement designed specifically to deal with terrorism that was extended much further in RIPA. Through an EU directive, the boundaries of the provision have extended far beyond what was originally envisaged in the voluntary agreement effectively to cover every aspect of Government activity in this country.
	That is not a happy state of affairs, and although I accept that new clause 5 is reticent in tackling the underlying problems in the legislation, which may require radical amendment, it at least offers us an opportunity to reconsider the road that we took when RIPA was passed. I do not think that the issue is going to go away: the public concern that has been expressed is entirely legitimate, and there is growing anxiety about the extent to which we may be creeping into a surveillance society. One of the arguments made for RIPA was that it would bring under one umbrella all the state's investigatory powers to obtain information on communications retention. However, that has not happened, as far as I am aware. Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions have completely separate powers, enacted by the House, which undermines the need for RIPA in the first place.
	I hope that the Minister will respond to my concerns and consider carefully whether, in fact, there are not better ways in which to proceed. I do not entertain huge hopes that we will succeed this evening in a Division, but I hope that at least the new clause will send the Minister a signal that the matter ought to be revisited, preferably by the Government after further consultation, because it raises the question of creeping, incremental powers for the state, which is not desirable without further debate. As often happens in the House, we have succeeded in putting together a package that will have a substantial impact on the liberty of the individual without appreciating the full force of what we are about. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the proposal, even if he does not support the new clause, and explain how the Government propose to approach those problems in future.

Tony McNulty: I was not challenging the notion that those debates were bad tempered—I have read them, and that is extremely clear—but those debates are over, and orders and secondary legislation have been passed. There is nothing in the new clause that changes any of that, even though the hon. Gentleman said that that is the aim of the new clause.
	I am happy to debate RIPA and what public authorities should, or should not, be allowed to do, and what they can do with the three different grades of communications data. Much of the discussion of the orders that came into force on 1 October was based on erroneous facts. It was thought that hundreds of authorities would be allowed access to the highest level of communications data, but that is not the case. It was suggested that any number of public authorities would be allowed to access that data for tax purposes, but that is simply not the case. Naturally, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs can do so, because that is part of its duty. We were given the impression that, notwithstanding the detailed orders and regulations, there would be a free-for-all, in which, as the hon. Gentleman implied, every arm of the state would have ready access to the most detailed communications data. That is not the case, but new clause 5 fails to address that. It may a useful device in airing the notion that we need a detailed debate on the relevant provisions in RIPA—I give the hon. Gentleman that, but this is not the time to hold that debate.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is far more erudite and expert in those legal matters than I am. I have watched with admiration as he danced on the head of a legalistic pin to good effect, but I am told in substantial terms that what he seeks will not be achieved by the measure. The impact that he seeks to achieve on the orders that came into force on 1 October will not prevail. That is a matter of dispute: the Department's lawyers challenge his view—he will be used to that position, too. However, there will be opportunities—I go this far with him—to revisit and discuss the substance of the provisions of RIPA with respect to communications data. The new clause is not the way to do that.
	Let me deal with the proposals in the Government amendments, which are straightforward. They make it clear that only senior HMRC officials can authorise the use of intrusive surveillance powers. I am pleased to bring the amendments to the House in response to concerns raised in Committee, principally by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). Commenting on concerns raised by the Law Society, he asked that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)—he was in Committee, happily, not me—consider whether it could be made clearer precisely who was mandated by the provisions. That is what the Government amendments seek to achieve.
	Although I accept the broad thrust of the contextual introduction by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to debates about RIPA and communications data, this is not the place or the new clause to change that. In any case, the new clause as drafted would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective. In that happy consensual spirit on the Government amendments and partially consensual approach on new clause 5, I hope he will withdraw new clause 5 and that the Government amendments, tabled not least at the insistence—very eloquent, I am sure—of the hon. Member for Hornchurch, prevail.

Dominic Grieve: Let me start by saying some pleasant things to the Minister. I thank him for the amendments that the Government have tabled in respect of the level of officer in Customs and Excise authorising intrusive surveillance. We are grateful for the Minister's response to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). We welcome the amendments and will gladly support them.
	On our amendments, there is that classic difference of approach between Government and Opposition which, I am afraid, will continue to separate us. The Minister may be right that the Bill, which deals with many other matters, was not the easiest place for us to focus on what we perceive to be the serious deficiencies of RIPA. I also accept that amending the legislation in order to achieve all the points that I raised in the course of debate is difficult without a complete overhaul of the architecture of the Act, but it is still worth attempting. I differ from the Minister in the belief that if the amendment were passed, it would alter the way in which the Act can be interpreted and which public authorities could remain on the list of those who could obtain the information.
	With that in mind, and with the background fact that the legislation is causing public disquiet, on which there has been a considerable amount of comment, even though I am the first to accept that its origins may have been reasonable when it was first considered, it is the duty of the Opposition at least to seek the opinion of the House as to how many Members share that disquiet. I shall therefore put the new clause to the vote.
	I am grateful to the Minister for showing a willingness to listen to some of the problems that have been caused by this area of legislation. We are undoubtedly living in a period of our history where the power and rights of the state to intrude into citizens' lives have increased beyond all recognition, compared to the position 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We are in serious danger of accepting as a norm what our forefathers would have regarded as an outrage. Although there are security considerations that we must balance, on the back of security we are in danger of creating a highly regulated state which is rather poor at bringing about behavioural changes in relation to the observance of the law.
	That is one of the big topics that we must face in the House, and I suspect it is one to which we will return over and over again. It would be helpful if we could reach a degree of consensus in all parts of the House as to how to strike the balance, but I am pretty well convinced in my own mind that at present the balance is far too skewed towards the intrusive powers of the state and far away from the rights of the individual.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division —

Jeremy Browne: Most hon. Members, particularly those who sat through our extended periods in Committee, will accept that amendment No. 63 relates to the crux of this legislation—the principal reason why my party and I are uncomfortable with the Government's proposals.
	The amendment has a simple purpose: to put the criminal standard of proof into the Bill. At the moment, the Government insist that serious crime prevention orders are a preventive, not punitive, measure and that therefore the civil standard of proof is appropriate. However, I remind hon. Members that the sanctions for those who fall foul of the proposals are severe indeed: people's travel can be restricted, within the United Kingdom as well as abroad, and they may also be restricted in where they can work, live and visit. Short of sending people to prison, pretty much every imaginable restriction on the liberty of the citizen may be involved, and if people fail to comply with the orders, the sanctions extend as far as a prison sentence. In some cases, it is entirely possible that somebody contravening the orders might go to prison despite never having committed a criminal offence or having been found guilty according to a criminal standard of proof.
	Furthermore, the orders can apply for anything up to five years—indeed, they are more draconian than that, because the five-year period is indefinitely renewable. Somebody could have a most severe restriction on their liberty for the remainder of their life without having committed a criminal offence or having been found guilty by any criminal standard of proof. The amendment addresses head-on that lack of legal certainty.
	Baroness Scotland said in the other place:
	"the court will look at the civil standard as a sliding scale, with the likely standard of proof for these orders being very close to the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' ".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 729.]
	Let us stop for a moment, as we did in Committee, and consider that statement to ascertain whether it is satisfactory in respect of the protection of the citizen's liberty. The Baroness mentioned a "sliding scale"; that will ring alarm bells with some people straight away. She talked about the "likely"—another qualification—standard of proof being "very close" to the criminal standard. Everyone will note that she did not mention "the criminal standard", merely one "very close" to it.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said during earlier deliberations on the Bill:
	"On clause 1(1)(a), we would expect the standard of proof to be virtually identical to that for criminal proceedings" ——[Official Report, Serious Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2007; c. 19.]
	Again, the caveat is entered: not identical, but "virtually identical". On Second Reading, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said:
	"we expect that the standard of proof required in relation to the question of whether a person has been involved in serious crime will be the same as in criminal cases"—[ Official Report, 12 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 664.]
	However, that standard has not been put into the Bill; at present, according to the verbal guidance given by most Ministers, we are some way short of the criminal standard of proof. We do not know how far short we are, and it is difficult to know how the legislation will be enacted in practice, but we do know, or appear to know, that the criminal standard of proof will not have to be met for people to be subject to the restrictions on liberty and sanctions in the Bill.
	To broaden my point, I shall briefly go through the scope of some of those sanctions. First, as I have mentioned, they are very wide-ranging; we are not talking about a slap on the wrist. They have been called "gangster ASBOs" in tabloid parlance, although the punishment that they carry has a far greater effect than ASBOs themselves. Secondly, the sanctions are too easy as an alternative to prosecution. No one is more in favour than I of trying to arrest and detain someone involved in crime—drawing the evidence together and putting it before a court with a jury of the person's peers. If such a person can be proved to be guilty, a criminal prosecution should be sought. However, I feel far more uncomfortable with the Bill's underlying assumption: that we essentially know who is breaking the law, but we do not have enough evidence to prove it, so we will make legislation that means that we do not have to come up with such evidence, because we can restrict those people's liberty severely without needing to prove that they have done anything wrong.
	If anything, the opposite to the norm is often the case: the accused person has to demonstrate that they have not done anything wrong, rather than the other way around. A person need never have committed a crime to fall foul of the Bill and in my party we do not regard that as a sufficient safeguard. The amendment gets to the absolute essence of the legislation, and I am keen not only to speak to it but press it to a Division so that we can try once again to put a criminal standard of proof into the Bill. I urge the Government to consider that point seriously.

James Brokenshire: The Government have sought to clarify their position on the standard of proof to be applied in considering serious crime prevention orders, but the wording of the Bill rather muddies the waters, which is why further clarity is necessary.
	The starting point for the standard of proof that is to be applied in deciding whether a person has been involved in serious crime is the Government's Green Paper, "New powers against organised and financial crime", which was published in July 2006. Paragraph 3.1 states:
	"The courts would be able to impose an order if they believe on the balance of probability that the subject
	Has acted in a way which facilitated or was likely to facilitate the commissioning of serious crime
	That the terms of the order are necessary and proportionate to prevent such harms in future."
	It adds at paragraph 3.4:
	"we would envisage stating on the face of the legislation that to impose an order the courts should be satisfied on the balance of probability that the test is met."
	Clauses 35(2) and 36(2) are incorporated in the Bill precisely to give effect to that stated intention, as they make it clear that the standard of proof to be applied by the High Court and the Crown court is the civil standard of proof—in other words, the balance of probabilities test, or, in simple language, "Was it more likely than not?"
	However, the Government have said that despite the language used in the Bill, things have moved on, and they would expect the House of Lords judgment in the case of McCann, which related to antisocial behaviour orders, to apply to serious crime prevention orders, with the effect that the aforementioned sliding scale would be adopted, incorporating something close to the criminal burden of proof. As the Minister said in Committee,
	"For clarity, let me say that we expect that, with respect to clause 1(1)(a), the standard of proof, as laid out in the McCann judgment, would be virtually identical to the criminal standard of proof."
	He added:
	"as far as the Government are concerned, the judgment in McCann in the House of Lords will inform the practice when it comes to the implementation of serious crime prevention orders." ——[Official Report, Serious Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2007; c. 17-18.]
	So the expectation is that the McCann judgment would apply or that it would "inform the practice". What has not been said is that that will be the practice. That is why I remain of the view that it is important, for the sake of certainty and clarity, to avoid the need for case law, and for interpretation to make this relatively simple issue clear in the Bill by way of the amendments.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that when something like this is not made clear, it means either that the Government have not made up their own mind as to what they want or that they do not want it to be clear? In the end, the judgment is based not on the Minister's words but on the words in the Bill. I am worried that we are instigating a procedure that is justifiable only on the basis of the normal criminal measurement of guilt, and pretending that it is almost that although it is actually something much less.

James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful and effective point. It is extremely strange that this simple and narrow point has not been taken on board in the language of the Bill. As the Minister will see from the amendments, it does not require a huge amount of drafting to clarify the burden of proof required to demonstrate that somebody has been engaged in or involved in serious crime. One must therefore question why there is such reluctance to take that on board and to make the changes that we believe are necessary. We think it appropriate for the situation to be made clear in the Bill, and our amendments Nos. 75, 76, 79 and 80 would give effect to that.
	The Government have said throughout the passage of the Bill that the orders in part 1 are intended to be a preventive civil tool rather than a punishment. Indeed, as we have already discussed, that approach is essential to compliance with the European convention on human rights. There is little doubt, however, that these orders could be extremely wide-ranging in nature and scope and be quite draconian. That point has been rehearsed on many previous occasions on Second Reading and in Committee, and I do not intend to delay the House unduly with it. However, given the need to make it clear that the powers should be used in a preventive way, it is important that this House states that the terms of the order should be "necessary and proportionate" in order to prevent the harm of serious crime. This is not about questioning the integrity of the court but about providing a clear statement of purpose which should aid compliance with article 6 of the ECHR.

James Brokenshire: By using the word "appropriate", the Minister is suggesting that the High Court would operate in an inappropriate way; otherwise, he would not have put the word in the Bill in the first place. I do not accept his argument. For the purposes of clarity, "necessary and proportionate" sums up very clearly what we believe should be stated in the Bill.
	There remains a genuine concern that the orders may be used in a way that subverts or replaces the existing criminal process. Paragraph 3.2 of the Green Paper notes:
	"As with other disposals available to agencies like the FSA, those deciding whether to prosecute or pursue a civil order will need to decide which disposal is most likely to reduce harm in the long run, while taking due account of the public interest in prosecutions."
	It is therefore envisaged that orders may be sought as an alternative to a prosecution. This is a road down which we must proceed with caution. Civil orders can have a part to play in combating crime, although the way that the Government have introduced and implemented such orders in the past hardly makes the case well. The Minister has said that only about 30 such orders are intended to be issued annually and that the main target will be the Mr. Bigs, although the Green Paper talks about orders being applied to "individuals on the fringes" and "peripheral players". The point is made that if someone is potentially caught within the ambit of the Bill, clause 4 provides a reverse burden of proof for them to show that they have acted reasonably. The problem is that we do not know how this new power will be applied in practice. Even at this late stage, if the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments, I urge them to provide for a formal mechanism to monitor and renew the orders so that they do not start to be seen as an easy option when a formal criminal prosecution could and should be made to deal with a serious criminal.
	Then there are the crimes that are deemed to be serious in the first place in order for an serious crime prevention order to be considered. There is a need for certainty and clarity, and it is right that the offences regarded as serious should be stated in the Bill rather than left open for further interpretation. It seems astonishing, given the increasing threat, its interrelationship with most other criminal activity, and the level of organisation and technological sophistication that now lies behind it, that computer crime is not considered a serious crime and stated in schedule 1. That appears to be a glaring omission when one considers that fishing for salmon, trout or freshwater fish with prohibited instruments is considered under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to be a serious offence. That implies that the Government do not regard computer-enabled cybercrime as serious or a priority.
	Such crime hurts more and more people each day, with some surveys suggesting that the public feel more at risk of being the victim of an online crime than they do of any of the other, more high-profile offences. A survey by the Government-sponsored Get Safe Online website asking people of which of a series of crimes they felt most at risk in their everyday lives showed that 21 per cent. identified internet crime—higher than burglary at 16 per cent., mugging at 11 per cent. or car theft at 8 per cent. Online crime is growing fast. According to Get Safe Online, 10 per cent. of internet users were the victims of an online fraud in 2006; the average loss for each individual was £875. It is not just a matter of fraud, but of trojans, viruses and other malware that damage people's computers, as well as misusing them for botnet attacks on others. There is also identity fraud, where individuals' personal details and credit card information are harvested by clandestine means and traded as currency among criminal gangs. Such crime undermines confidence in the use of the internet as a trading platform and its role as an effective means of communicating information.
	The Government are not immune from attack. The tax credits website was shut after fraudsters used security lapses to make bogus claims and steal the identities of 13,000 staff at the Department for Work and Pensions and Network Rail. It is unlikely to reopen before next year. Business has been hit hard. During the past year, 84 per cent. of large businesses are thought to have suffered a malicious security incident. The Metropolitan police estimate the average losses to a large company of an e-crime attack at anywhere between £65,000 and £130,000, rising to £1 million for a large corporate entity. Against such a background, it seems astonishing that computer-enabled crime should not be considered as serious under the Bill.
	On Second Reading, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said:
	"This Bill is designed to fill the gaps and lacunae that exist in the law, and its scope does not extend to every crime that, however remotely, could be construed as serious. As I said earlier, the Bill and schedules have been devised precisely to fill what we perceive to be holes in the existing legislation covering serious and organised crime."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 663.]
	I would assert that not including cybercrime in the Bill creates a very big hole, as such crime is serious, organised and poses a significant threat to an increasing number of people, and it should be treated as such. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 81 and 82 would improve the Bill by inserting various offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 into schedule 1 to send a clear message to those intent on causing us harm that my party treats the issue extremely seriously, even if the Government do not. I will listen carefully to how the Minister responds and to his explanation of the Government's position on this issue. It is so serious that if we do not receive appropriate assurances, the matter should be pressed to a Division.
	The changes proposed to the serious crime prevention orders by the Government appear largely technical in nature, and do not address the fundamental issues highlighted by us and by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), except for Government amendment No. 3, which deals with the appeal process. That amendment effectively clarifies the appeals process through the criminal division of the Court of Appeal and on to the supreme court, and adds language to the provisions. However, the Government have reserved an order-making power under what will be inserted as clause 24(9) and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the use of the power, the intention behind it and how it would operate and interact with the new appeal process.
	We will listen carefully to the Minister's response, but there are a number of serious issues relating to the clarity, confirmation and scope of serious crime prevention orders. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the significant reservations that have been raised tonight and previously, both inside and outside the House, and insert some quite simple measures to give the clarity and certainty that so many people want.

John Gummer: I shall apply myself to the specific issue of certainty and clarity. When the Minister said that the tests would be virtually the same, it raises an important question. If they are virtually the same, why can they not be the same? It is no more difficult than that. I raise that question particularly because other Ministers have often suggested that they are the same. Similarly, in the discussion we had a few moments ago, all the words that I used are used by those who want greater power than they think the House would give them.
	I want to explain to the Minister why I think that the issue is very serious. It has always been true that in this country the rights and freedoms of the individual have been restricted for the very best of intentions. It has always been for the highest purposes, and it has always been argued that it has to be done because of the threat of this, that or the other. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) found that he had to say that he was not in favour of organised crime before he was allowed to go on to say why the issue he raised was so important. I hope that I do not have to say that, but we are almost put into that position and we have been again and again. I hope that the Minister understands why it is necessary for him to be very precise. During the past 10 years, there has been a succession of Bills in which the freedom of the individual has come second by a long way in the Government's approach to such issues.
	Again and again, whether about juries, the burden of proof and so on, the Government are on the side of authoritarianism. It is sad for me to find, once again, that I am arguing from a position that must be to the left of the Government's. It is increasingly confusing to people out there that the Government take views that do not start from the presumption that we have to defend people's rights. The right that we are considering is crucial.

Vernon Coaker: To put beyond reasonable doubt what I am saying, the civil court, in making its judgment about such matters, should take into account the case of McCann in the House of Lords. I am not a lawyer, but every time I raise the issue everybody says to me, "Well you ought to read the House of Lords judgment on this." That is what I am told by barristers and lawyers everywhere—"Read the House of Lords judgment. The House of Lords is the highest court in the land. It will inform the decisions that courts make." That is exactly what I am doing. I am saying that the courts of the land—the civil courts in this case—should apply the case of McCann in determining what standard of proof they should apply when considering serious crime prevention orders.
	No doubt much more eminent lawyers than me—since I am not one anyway—use the words "virtually indistinguishable". If those words can be used by the House of Lords, which is the highest court of the land, it seems appropriate that I, too, should use the word "virtually", which is what I have done. If it is the intention of the hon. Member for Taunton to make the applicable standard "beyond reasonable doubt", the House of Lords has already done that, so the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 appear to go to the same end, so I hope that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) will not feel the need to press them.
	On amendments Nos. 65 and 66, let me make clear one important point. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that those who commit serious crimes are quickly detected, effectively brought to trial and punished appropriately. However, amendments Nos. 65 and 66 misunderstand the role that the orders can play. There will not be a direct choice for the Director of Public Prosecutions—or any of the other applicant authorities, for that matter—between pursuing a prosecution, which is punitive, and seeking an order, which is preventive. Orders can be sought independently of, before, alongside or after a prosecution. They will be sought at whatever point in time there is a harm that can be best and most effectively prevented by the imposition of reasonable and proportionate conditions. That does not affect the primacy of prosecution for those who have committed serious crimes. Indeed, one of the reasons why we have chosen the applicant authorities that we have, in this part of the Bill, is precisely because they are the best placed to make an assessment of the most appropriate course of action in any particular set of circumstances. For those reasons, I must resist the amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to amend the provision in clause 1(3), and the similar provision for orders in the Crown Court in clause 19, in order to change the word "appropriate" to the term "necessary and proportionate". The provisions set out the test that the court must apply when deciding on the terms to include in an order. Placing a requirement on the court to act proportionately is unnecessary because it simply reflects a principle by which the court will already abide in making the orders. There is no need to tell the High Court in legislation to be proportionate. As for a requirement for the terms of an order to be necessary, we believe that we have set the standard in clause 1(3), and later in clause 19(5), at the right level. That is because we have struck the right balance in requiring the test to be sufficiently tough to ensure that an order will be proportionate but not so tough that it can never be met. For those reasons, I am afraid that I must resist the amendments.
	The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) has tabled amendments Nos. 67 and 72. They cover subjects that we debated at some length in Committee, and I have not changed my mind since that debate. We have provided a schedule to show the large majority of the offences in relation to which the use of these orders would be appropriate. Also, within the framework of the schedule, we have provided a discretion for the High Court—or, as the case may be, the Crown Court—to treat an offence as serious if, in the circumstances of the case before it, which we cannot know or foresee, it considers the offence to be serious enough to be treated as if it were specified in the schedule.
	It is important that we do not fetter the discretion of the courts to adapt to the constant changes around them by looking at the context of an offence and making a fully informed and reasoned decision as to whether it would be appropriate for that offence to attract an order. Let me give the House an example of why this discretion is necessary. We do not consider it appropriate to include offences against the person, such as assault or murder, in the schedule because they are not suitable for attracting an order in all circumstances. So, I am sure that we can all agree that, when a person assaults another in a simple fight in a pub, these orders would be completely inappropriate. However, when someone has routinely used violence to intimidate and maintain a reign of terror in an area, he might be an appropriate candidate for an order, after serving his sentence, if there is evidence that an order would prevent such crimes from being committed again. It is the circumstances in which these types of offence are committed that determine whether or not an order is appropriate. The person best placed to make that decision will be the judge sitting in the High Court.
	On amendments Nos. 73 and 74, I would like to point out that, in drafting the Bill, we wanted to ensure that any actions of the proposed subject which were reasonable in the circumstances could not be used as the basis for an SCPO. So, for example, there is no doubt that an employee of PC World facilitates serious crime when he sells Mr. X a computer which Mr. X later uses to commit a massive fraud. Mr. X could not commit the crime without that computer. However, to say that the employee should be able to be the subject of an SCPO for those actions would be ludicrous. As a result, we have clause 4(2)(a) and 4(3)(a), which mean that any action which the proposed subject can show is reasonable cannot form the basis for an SCPO. The intent behind the amendments seems to be to force the applicant authority instead to have to show that the actions were unreasonable.

Vernon Coaker: I do not accept that, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows. We have already debated that matter long and hard.
	As I have said, the intent behind the amendments seems to be to force the applicant authority to show that the actions were unreasonable. Whether that is correct depends on one question: who is best placed to know the circumstances surrounding those actions and whether they are reasonable? The answer must surely be the subject. It is important to remember, though, that for this even to be an issue, the applicant authority will already have had to adduce evidence to show that the actions of the proposed subject facilitated, or were likely to facilitate, serious crime. Without having proved the existence of the element of facilitation, the question of whether the actions were reasonable would not arise. So, the proposed subject will not be asked to prove reasonableness in a vacuum; rather, they will need to show that the actions that facilitated the serious crime were reasonable. If I asked my constituents whether it was acceptable to ask someone who has been proven to have facilitated crimes such as drug trafficking or people smuggling to show that their actions were reasonable, I am confident that their answer would be the same as mine. I continue to resist the amendments for those reasons and hope that they will be not be pressed. We have already discussed at some length the civil nature of the orders and I do not propose to go into any further detail now.
	Finally, on the amendments not tabled by the Government, I would like to mention amendments Nos. 81 and 82. They would add the offences contained in sections 1 to 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to the list of offences contained in schedule 1. I would like to thank hon. Gentlemen for tabling those amendments, but in consultation with law enforcement agencies and others throughout the development and passage of the Bill, no one has suggested that those offences should be included. However, the Government are firmly committed to tackling computer crime and I can see that there may be merit in including those types of offence in the schedule. I cannot accept the amendments at this time, because I would not wish to do so without consulting the computer industry and other stakeholders. However, that was precisely the reason why we included the order-making power to add to the schedule at a later date. That aspect has been opposed, but it might be helpful in those circumstances. If I make a commitment now to consult fully on the amendments and, subject to the results of that consultation, to seek to amend the schedule by order if it proves to be appropriate, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
	There are a number of other Government amendments, which are relatively minor and technical, and I intend to move them formally later. I invite the House to resist amendment No. 63.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This Bill has been debated at some length, both in this House and the other place, which has culminated in us debating on Report a piece of legislation that will provide important tools in the fight against serious crime. I now commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.
	First and foremost, I wish to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), for doing all the work on the Bill. I am grateful for that. I also wish to thank Members on both sides of the House for the constructive way in which they have approached the vast majority of the Bill, as we have seen in our deliberations today. I also wish to thank the civil service team that worked diligently and professionally on the Bill, with great spirit and sharp focus.
	Serious crime represents one of the greatest threats to the security of this country and we all know we must work together to combat those who are determined to make their fortune from crimes such as trafficking in drugs, smuggling people or laundering money. We agree on all those issues, but we may disagree on the best way to achieve our ends. That is only right and proper, and the process of detailed scrutiny of the Bill has given us a piece of legislation that not only will achieve a great deal, but is in far better shape at the end of the parliamentary process than it was at the beginning.
	Among other things the Bill provides law enforcement with an effective new tool to prevent the harm caused by serious crime before it happens: the serious crime prevention order, which is carefully targeted at inhibiting criminal activity, but which is put in place by the courts only where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so. The measure delivers a strengthening of the provisions that allow us to seize the assets of serious criminals, which will help us to deliver the target of doubling confiscation of criminal assets to £250 million per year by 2010, including merging the Assets Recovery Agency into the Serious Organised Crime Agency to give further improvements in efficiency.
	The Bill improves the way in which we are able to use data, across the public and private sectors, to prevent and detect fraud. It addresses the gap in the criminal law identified by the Law Commission concerning incitement. It makes the surveillance powers on which we have just deliberated available to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and enables them to be used for investigations into serious crime in relation to ex-Customs and Excise matters; they will also be available in relation to investigations into serious crime concerning ex-Inland Revenue matters.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. If the activities to which he referred were undertaken in pursuit of serious crime, the answer is yes. I do not demur from the notion that we need to look at other aspects of the broader issue of incitement. The incitement aspects of the Bill merely reflect the Law Commission's findings. The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point and it is worthy of debate and discussion—but not now.
	On Report, we dwelt on the HMRC aspects of surveillance powers, especially intrusive surveillance powers—not least at the behest of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). However, his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised broader issues relating to surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and to communications data. I have no doubt we shall return to those issues; that debate is still to be had. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in his characterisation of the debate, but no doubt we shall hold it at some point.
	As the Under-Secretary, promised, there was a useful discussion on Report on the stop-and-search proposals that originated in the Lords. The Government's proposals put us in a far more reasonable place. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch was flawed in some ways, but the House has done the country a service in supporting the Government's proposals, while the Government have done the House a service by listening to voices from the Opposition and others. The stop-and-search provisions now offer a position of greater clarity and are better than they were before. I thank the House for that, especially for not dividing on an issue that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, could be one on which colleagues were tempted to showboat and to play to the gallery for tabloid headlines. I am grateful that did not happen, and the stop-and-search powers are in a better place than before the Bill began its progress.
	In that spirit, I welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill. As a result, and through continued consultation with stakeholders, we have tabled amendments that meet some of the concerns expressed in the House and in another place—not all of them, I freely concede; otherwise, why would we need an Opposition? The amendments improve the way in which the Bill will deliver its objective of tackling serious crime in an effective but balanced way—an endeavour where we are all united against those who commit serious crime, which we all want to drive down.
	This serious matter has been dealt with in Committee and in our debates today in a way that is to the credit of the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.

James Brokenshire: I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and applied the scrutiny and the approach to which the Minister has alluded in seeking to highlight points in the Bill and to raise the concerns that rightly exist in relation to the operation of its provisions. I want to put on record my thanks to the Home Office officials for providing assistance, guidance and information and for responding to the questions that I asked them. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary for his courtesy in dealing with the points raised with him, even though we were unable to reach an agreement or find a resolution in relation to the points that have been highlighted.
	The essence of the debates on the Bill has been whether it will prevent serious crime from occurring. The key part has been the introduction of the serious crime prevention order—in essence, a new hybrid of an ASBO and a control order. However, as I have said today, given the experience of the way in which the Government have used civil remedies, we still have considerable questions about what difference the new order will make in practice. As we know, control orders have not been a full success, with a third of those subject to the apparently stringent conditions of the orders having absconded. ASBOs have been breached in record numbers, with the National Audit Office reporting that 55 per cent. are breached and some areas reporting breach rates as high as 70 per cent.
	Although the public may welcome measures, such as ASBOs, as an indication that something is being done, when examined more closely, that perception turns negative in respect of whether they stop people causing antisocial behaviour, as they were supposed to do. The same questions apply to the serious crime prevention order.
	As Chief Superintendent Neil Wain, a borough commander on the Greater Manchester police force, notes in his recent book, "The ASBO: Wrong Turning, Dead End", not only are ASBOs regularly breached, but they do not appear to control the behaviour of those subject to them. In addition, many of those on ASBOs were persistent criminals, and rather than controlling behaviour, the orders appeared to be more like post-conviction bail conditions, where the objective was breach and imprisonment. Again, that underlines some of the points that have been made this evening and the question whether serious crime prevention orders will be applied in such a way that amounts to a punishment, whatever assurances the Minister may have given most genuinely to the House this evening. That is why that we believe strongly that there should be close scrutiny and examination of the practical use to which such orders may be put. But even if that were taken on board and we accept all the provisions on the wording of serious crime prevention orders, there is always the question of how they will be monitored. They will be only as good as the monitoring and enforcement that lies behind them.
	The appalling case of Garry Chester-Nash clearly highlights the possible weaknesses of the Government's arguments if they are not prepared to follow through rigorously any order that is granted under part 1. Chester-Nash had a string of 30 convictions, including for several offences involving knives. He was identified as such a significant risk to the public that he was made subject to one of the most stringent ASBOs imposed, which banned him from all licensed premises in England, from carrying any weapon and from seeking employment that would bring him into contact with women. He was also subject to one of the highest levels of supervision by a multi-agency public protection arrangement. Yet, on his release from prison, when he failed to return to the bail hostel in east London, as he should have done, he travelled to Cornwall instead and stabbed to death 59-year-old Jean Bowditch in a bungled burglary on the bungalow that she was supposed to be cleaning. At his trial last year, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommended minimum sentence of 30 years.
	Such appalling cases continue to make me sceptical of the impact of serious crime prevention orders. Whatever may be written into the Bill, whatever the stated intentions and whatever the terms of the orders that may be granted, serious crime will not be prevented without rigorous supervision, monitoring and enforcement. If offenders are that much of a risk, the Government should not contemplate the use of such orders but use the full force of the criminal law and ensure that dangerous prisoners serve the full term of their sentence, rather than being let out early, subject to a serious crime prevention order or other order, however stringent its terms are supposed to be.
	In combating and preventing acts of serious violence and terrorism, we remain committed to the introduction of intercept evidence—a measure that is used successfully in other countries, and we believe that it should be applied here. In the Lords, the noble Lord Lloyd introduced an amendment that would have put such a measure into law, but the provision was removed by the Government, without them giving any assurance on that important subject at the Privy Council review.
	In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
	"The Government are absolutely committed to a review of the use of intercept. We are also committed to using intercept as evidence if we can find a workable model and the necessary safeguards can be put in place. That is the Government's position. It is clear, and there is no rowing back from it." ——[Official Report, Serious Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2007; c.82.]
	There has been no rowing forward either, as far as we can see, and the Government made no reference to the issue tonight. No indication has been given of the likely timing of the outcome on the review's findings, which we will obviously note with interest. That is an area in which we believe that we could make a real difference in preventing crime and terrorism.
	We have made some progress in other areas. We welcome the Government's concessions on a number of points raised by Opposition Members—the addition of firearms offences as serious crimes under the terms of the Bill; confirmation of the seniority of officials in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs who are able to use specific surveillance powers under the Bill; and the introduction of a code of practice to govern the data-sharing provisions for public authorities in part 3 of the Bill, together with the clarification that powers are to be used only for fraud prevention.
	On that last point, I remain of the view that it would have been more appropriate to give the Information Commissioner a specific right of audit and inspection in the Bill, but I acknowledge that a workable arrangement has been achieved through the code, and I am prepared to accept that. However, there is a bigger debate to be had about the function, powers and authority of the Information Commissioner in the context of his increasingly important role of making sure that data are supplied correctly, and that the interests of the private individual are protected. The House will need to return to that subject in the near future. We also welcome the reform of the law relating to inchoate offences in part 2 of the Bill. The reforms implement the recommendations of the Law Commission in a sensible, appropriate way.
	The Bill finally puts to rest the ill-fated Assets Recovery Agency, which was tasked with recovering assets from criminals using new powers of civil recovery, as well as powers of criminal confiscation and taxation. However, as the Public Accounts Committee recently reported, by December 2006 the agency had recovered assets of only £23 million; that is against an expenditure of £65 million. The Committee noted that
	"The Agency was set up, however, with insufficient preparatory work. There was no business case setting out the expectations for the Agency, resulting in unachievable delivery aims."
	Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee made recommendations, arising from the structural and operational failures of the Assets Recovery Agency, which led to the proposed transfer of its operations to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency under the Bill. It is essential that the recommendations be implemented by the successor organisations, and that the weaknesses are not merely transferred to the new bodies. It is important that assurances on the disclosure of information and on the performance of the assets recovery functions continue to be published in a format that allows comparison with the previous activities of the Assets Recovery Agency. We will be monitoring closely to ensure that a change in the structure leads to a step-change in performance.
	The Bill was a lost opportunity to ensure that stop and search powers were granted to police sergeants, as we today argued that they should be. That would offer the public greater protection from violent crime, and underline the importance of decisions made within communities affected by gun and knife crime. However, we accept that the amendments proposed by the Government on stop and search have some merit, although we question the extent of their impact. We will watch with interest to see whether stop and search turns out to be another area in which the Government subsequently decide to adopt Conservative thinking and make an important change to prevent crimes of serious violence.
	Despite our reservations about the serious crime prevention order, and the reservations of the Law Society, Liberty and others on whether the measure will be an effective, or indeed appropriate, remedy for reducing the harm caused by serious crime, we share the Government's desire to bear down on serious organised crime, and we will not oppose the Bill's Third Reading tonight. However, we will monitor closely whether the powers are applied in a way that is not intended by the House, to discover whether the Bill will simply join the long list of previous pieces of Home Office legislation introduced by the Government, promising much but delivering virtually nothing.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for a final opportunity to speak on the Bill. As is customary, I shall begin by thanking the many people involved in its inception. In the other place, where the Bill kicked off, my noble Friends Lords Dholakia, Goodhart, Burnett and Livsey all made substantial contributions to its progress. There were many Committee sittings, and the Conservatives even changed their spokesman. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who got the ball rolling, and to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) who spoke wisely and at length this evening. I thank the Under-Secretary not only for the way in which he has approached the substance of the Bill but for his general courtesy and willingness to engage with Opposition Members, as well as his readiness to make officials available to add clarity to our conversations. He has made a genuine effort, and other Ministers could learn from his etiquette and decency.
	The Bill has some merits. Like many Bills emanating from the Department, it is not an unequivocally good or bad Bill. There are things on which we agreed in Committee, and things on which we agreed this evening—most importantly, on stop- and-search powers. They are not the whole solution, as the Minister rightly said, but they are an important weapon against violent crime, as long as they are used with intelligence and discretion by the police. We regret that Lord Lloyd's amendment on intercept evidence was struck out by the Government without any willingness on their part to replace it with an amendment more to their liking. The crux of the Bill, on which we voted half an hour ago—regrettably, we lost that vote—is part 1, and I shall briefly detain the House by summing up its seven inherent flaws.
	First, the sanctions in the Bill are unrestricted in their scope. There are some restrictions, but they are not exhaustive. We must remember that we are talking about serious sanctions—virtually everything short of imprisoning the individual concerned—such as restrictions on internal travel in the United Kingdom, on the buildings they can visit, and on the places where they can work, so their day-to-day business may be severely curtailed. Those sanctions can last up to five years—we tried to reduce that period in Committee, but we failed—but that period is not a maximum. It can be extended indefinitely, so it is within the scope of the Bill for extremely draconian restrictions to be placed on someone's liberties, and for those restrictions to last their lifetime, without their having an opportunity to escape them, even if they are not convicted of a criminal offence. If they breach those restrictions, they could go to prison, despite their not having been convicted of a criminal offence.
	Secondly, serious crime prevention orders are too easy an alternative to prosecution. The underlying assumption in the mind of Government Ministers is that the enforcement agencies know who the perpetrators of many crimes are, but cannot find enough evidence to prosecute them. They have therefore decided to find a different way of penalising them, and we fear that it will be regarded as alternative to prosecution, although it is often in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Thirdly, there is no definition in the Bill of what constitutes a serious offence. There is a list of serious offences, some of which were subject to ridicule throughout our debates. I have yet to find an official who can defend the serious offences relating to salmon fishing. I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Minister as to why he regards salmon fishing as such an appalling offence. I do not wish to diminish the significance of the offence for any salmon fishermen who may be following our deliberations, but most of my constituents would not put that in the same category as the other items on the list. Moreover, further items can be added, so it is not a definitive list.
	Fourthly, a person need never have committed a crime in order to be subject to the punishments outlined in the Bill. Restrictions could legitimately be placed on a person who had been convicted of an offence, gone to prison, left prison and re-entered a criminal world—perhaps the same one that got them into prison in the first place—but there is a distinction between such a person and someone who is restricted but has not committed a criminal offence.
	Fifthly, there is no requirement for a person even to be aware that their actions could have facilitated a crime. In this respect, there is a lack of clarity in the Bill. The Minister constantly refers to the Mr. Bigs of the criminal underworld, whose efforts will be severely restricted by the Bill, but every time we ask for individual examples, they seem to come down to taxi companies run by inoffensive, or potentially offensive, small-time middle men and women in the criminal world, who certainly are not in the category of the 30 most prominent Mr. Bigs in Britain's underworld. A Bill which will almost certainly soon become an Act is not clear on that point.
	Sixthly, restrictions can be placed on a person who is not the subject of an order. Finally, a person is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That will offend many in the House who are concerned that the burden of proof will be on the recipient of the serious crime prevention order, rather than on those who wish to penalise that person.
	We have made our views known throughout the passage of the Bill, including this evening. There is no point in our voting on Third Reading, as our views are clear to everybody who has followed the progress of our deliberations. The Government have been too cavalier with civil liberties, during the passage of the Bill and more generally. It was striking that this evening only one non-ministerial Labour MP chose to speak during the debate. Trial by jury and hundreds of years of slowly building up the liberties of the individual citizen should not be discarded lightly. The divide in British politics is less between left and right than between those of a libertarian disposition and those of an authoritarian disposition. In that debate, my party is in the former camp. I fear that the Government are far too often in the latter camp, and we will have to revisit these debates many more times in the future.

Philip Hollobone: I concur with my hon. Friend, who has taken advantage of the debating time available in Westminster Hall. He is assiduous in his applications to secure such debates, and sadly, like most of us, he is often unsuccessful. However, the fact that he is a persistent applier for such debates means that he has secured a number of important debates in order to represent the concerns of his constituents. Back Benchers will be denied that opportunity on Tuesday 30 October if motion 6 on the Order Paper is agreed.
	Motion 6 does not sit at all comfortably with motion 5 on the Order Paper, which relates to the business of the House. This House has just agreed that we will discuss on Thursday 25 October a number of important motions, the main aim of which is to increase opportunities for Back Benchers to influence how the House operates. However, motion 6 on the Order Paper seeks to delete four and a half hours of parliamentary airtime, which is vital to Back Benchers for putting forward the interests of their constituents.
	I do not know the proposed timing of prorogation on Tuesday 30 October. However, I know that the parliamentary agenda, which we all follow, states under the heading "Business for the period ending on Tuesday 30th October":
	"Includes the business announced by the Leader of the House (which may be changed up to the rising of the House on the day before it is to be taken and is therefore provisional)."
	I understand that the agenda is provisional, but it gives the impression that on Tuesday 30 October the first item of business will be questions to the Secretary of State for Health. Health questions are an important parliamentary opportunity for my constituents, whom I do my best to represent, and I hope that they take place on that date.

Peter Bone: I will not detain the House for long, but this is an important issue. The power of the Executive is extremely strong. As parliamentarians we should try to take that power from the Executive and give it back to Members of this House. It is exceptionally unfortunate when debates that are designed for Members to raise issues are stopped. I cannot see the reason for it. There does not seem to be any possible reason why we could not have those debates. Unfortunately, I doubt that we will learn it tonight, but I do not think that the motion is a particularly good one.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Bob Russell: The issue of secondary education in Colchester has widened since I secured this debate, because on Friday, Essex county council published proposals to shut not only Alderman Blaxill school but a second school, the Thomas Lord Audley school and language college. The county want to build a 1,200 place academy on the site of the latter. That will result in a net reduction of 500 secondary school places in Colchester—one of the fastest growing towns in Britain—and in future years will cause a knock-on effect at all the other secondary schools as parents scramble for a place.
	Parental choice is already a myth for hundreds of parents. The loss of 500 places, if Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley close, will make choice of school even more of a lottery. The closure of Alderman Blaxill school will be contrary to the Government's sustainable communities objectives and their programme of safe routes to school, and it will be a victory for the right-wing Tory county council based 30 miles away in Chelmsford, only one of whose members represents a county division in Colchester—and he used to run his own private school. The town is otherwise represented by three Liberal Democrat and two Labour county councillors. Sadly, Colchester has to suffer the consequences of being ruled by Tories who do not live there. Surely the Minister does not want to jump into the same bed as the county Conservatives.
	There is massive opposition in the Shrub End area to the closure of Alderman Blaxill school, which has been at the heart of the local community since it opened just over 50 years ago. It is a much loved community school. Petitions have already attracted more than 2,500 signatures. Special appreciation goes to the Colchester  Gazette, the town's daily newspaper, which has launched a campaign to save the school—repeating what it did 15 years ago when the county Tories last tried to shut the school but were thwarted by people power.
	The  Gazette campaign, which is regularly covered in the newspaper, has its own distinctive logo with the words, "Alderman Blaxill Must Stay Open—Save Our School". Indeed, tonight's  Gazette leads on that very issue. I call on the Minister tonight to give his backing to the local community and not to the right-wing Tories at county hall, who have no interest in Colchester other than asset stripping and reducing services, as witnessed already this year by the decision to close the town's adult community education college at Grey Friars, which is to be sold, and by the closure of the Colchester record office, with the transfer of the historic records of Britain's oldest recorded town to Chelmsford.
	There is a widely held belief in Colchester that the county Tories want to sell the Alderman Blaxill school site, with its extensive playing fields, for residential development. I have little doubt that the Minister's briefing from his officials—ably assisted, I am sure, by officials from Essex county council—will paint a bleak picture of Alderman Blaxill school. However, I suspect that the county has been quiet about its role in how the school got into its current position. To put it simply, Essex county council is culpable. It is largely responsible for what has happened, and now it is seeking to shift the blame on to the school, and looking to the Government to help it out of the situation that it helped create by shutting Alderman Blaxill, leaving it with a prime site to sell.
	As I have already stated, we are now talking about the closure of two secondary schools—Alderman Blaxill at Shrub End and Thomas Lord Audley on the Monkwick estate. The county wants to build a huge academy on the Monkwick site, which, presumably, it expects pupils from Shrub End to attend. But will they? I shall say more about the proposed academy later.
	For the moment, let me deal with Alderman Blaxill school. It is named after a highly respected Colchester business man and educationalist, who served the town with great distinction for most of the first half of the 20th century; a former mayor who was granted the freedom of the borough, he lived in Colchester. In those days, councillors and officers lived in the community that they sought to represent and serve. Unfortunately, education today is in the hands of Essex county council. I believe that, had Colchester borough council been a unitary authority, the proposal to shut Alderman Blaxill school would not have been made; nor would the town have lost its record office and adult community education college. There is no way that a unitary borough council would have allowed Alderman Blaxill school to get into the position that the county Tories—by deliberate actions and neglect—have permitted. That is a further reason for calling on the Minister not to support the Tory-controlled county council's closure proposal for Alderman Blaxill and Thomas Lord Audley schools.
	Until about three years ago, none of the town's six comprehensive schools was in special measures. I could proudly claim that all of them—we also have two selective schools, plus a Catholic college—were good schools. I visit them all, and speak well of every one. However, first one, then two and finally three of the schools were placed in special measures. Only six secondary schools in the whole of Essex were in such a position. So how was it that, almost overnight, half the town's comprehensives found themselves in special measures?
	Essex education authority bears collective responsibility for that. There has been a failure to monitor what was going on and neglect to the point where the charge of dereliction of duty must be levelled at the education authority and its political rulers. In the case of Alderman Blaxill school, there has been what I can describe only as a deliberate attempt to undermine it so that the county could proceed with its dastardly proposals to close it—as it had tried to do in the past.
	In a feature article in the  Gazette on 27 June this year, a week after the newspaper broke the news that Essex county council planned to shut Alderman Blaxill, chief reporter Tom Weatherill wrote:
	"There is something going wrong somewhere with education in Colchester—and no-one seems prepared to say what it is."
	I urge the Minister to hold an inquiry into the competence of Essex education authority and its politically motivated actions involving Colchester's secondary schools. Perhaps the education authority should be put in special measures.
	I also urge the Minister to step in and halt the closure proposals. At a stroke, that would lift the blight on Alderman Blaxill school—a shadow that discourages some parents from sending their children to a school whose future is in doubt. Such a positive move by the Minister will give parents the confidence once again to choose Alderman Blaxill school, and give the school the encouragement to continue its programme under its new head, who has been in post for little more than a year, to restore its good name and reputation, which it had enjoyed for the best part of five decades.
	Indeed, Ofsted has praised the new head, Ms Faith Spinlove, who was appointed in March 2006, for identifying the school's problems and introducing
	"innovative ways to bring about improvement."
	That positive endorsement from Ofsted needs to be matched by ministerial support for the school and not the destructive behaviour of Essex education authority. Incidentally, at a packed public meeting for parents, as reported in the  Gazette on 2 July, the head
	"was handed a resounding vote of confidence"
	by the 100 people who attended. She had set out the "tough reforms" that she said she had embarked on to turn the school around.
	On 28 September,  Gazette editor Irene Kettle reported that support for the school was "overwhelming", adding:
	"We think this school, and the unique support it offers to Army families and children with special needs, should stay open for the people of Colchester."
	Alderman Blaxill is the smallest of Colchester's secondary schools. That is something that should be cherished, not destroyed. Not every child is happy in a large school. Another special characteristic is that between a fifth and a quarter of Alderman Blaxill's pupils are children who have a father—and sometimes a mother—serving in Her Majesty's armed forces and based at the Colchester garrison. The school has years of experience in helping such youngsters, which I witnessed for myself when just about every soldier from the garrison was deployed in the Iraq war. A further special characteristic is that Alderman Blaxill has the only child dyslexia unit in the north of the county, which was opened by five-times Olympic gold medal winner Sir Steve Redgrave.
	There is one characteristic, however, for which Essex education authority should hang its collective head in shame. It has deliberately used Alderman Blaxill school as a dumping ground for dysfunctional pupils whom Colchester's other secondary schools do not want.  Gazette features editor Iris Clapp observed in an article on 5 July:
	"Alderman Blaxill School doesn't only teach children from Shrub End and Colchester Garrison. It provides desk space for all those teenagers expelled from the town's other secondary schools, has a very high proportion of special needs children, and crucially, houses the only child dyslexia unit in North Essex."
	With the lack of support from the education authority, is it any wonder that the school has had more than its share of difficulties, which has led to the criticisms from Ofsted?
	Incidentally, the importance of Alderman Blaxill school in the welfare and education of children of Colchester-based soldiers was highlighted in a report by the Select Committee on Defence published on 6 September last year. Indeed, the Committee took the extremely rare step of coming to Colchester, on 24 April 2006, for a formal evidence session at the school, interviewing teachers, service families and service children. In a spirit of joined-up government, perhaps the Minister will invite his officials to read the Committee's report, the 11th of the 2005-06 Session. I would also direct him to an Adjournment debate that I secured on 25 October 1999, in which I highlighted the special pressures facing schools with a large number of children from service families.
	For how long has Essex education authority been secretly plotting to close Alderman Blaxill school this time around? Has that been done with the knowledge and connivance of county councillors? It is obvious that discussions long pre-dated the Ofsted inspection in May, but I have not been able to establish when they started or, most crucially, at what point it was decided that the closure of Alderman Blaxill should be pursued and who was involved. Can the Minister throw any light on the sequence of events? Either officials of Essex education authority had deliberated without the knowledge of councillors or councillors were part of the discussions and had known for some time. If they did know, they kept that secret from residents of Shrub End before this May's crucial borough elections in what is Colchester's most marginal three-way ward, for fear that it would be electorally damaging to the Conservatives in fighting the defending Labour councillor, who lost his seat.
	About five years ago, the popular head of Alderman Blaxill school left to take up an appointment at a bigger school elsewhere in Britain. Long-serving governors tell me that, despite their objections, they were forced by the county education authority to appoint a head in whom they had little confidence. He did not last long, and quit in 2005 following undisclosed allegations. Former chairman of the governors, Mr. Ray Norris, was reported by the  Gazette as saying that the county had failed to support Colchester schools. In the issue of 27 June, he referred to what he described as the county's
	"poor performance and lack of investment in Colchester schools."
	He added:
	"We feel that the County Council has invested in education in South Essex and neglected Colchester."
	Some months ago, the head of Thomas Lord Audley school left following a critical Ofsted report. That clearly helped the county with its intentions to close both schools—in effect, to merge them and create a new school, albeit one outside the traditional local education system, namely a so-called academy on the TLA site.
	This morning, I visited Thomas Lord Audley school, which is well on the way to coming out of special measures. A few weeks ago, I attended a special evening for potential year 7 pupils at Alderman Blaxill school.
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Blizzard.]

Ken Purchase: As ever, I am grateful for your superb guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I will stick to that very narrow point by making precise comparisons.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned church schools, which are bedevilling—forgive the pun, which was not intended—education in his constituency. The reason given for establishing academies there is that they will provide more parental choice. My constituency has three private schools, a girls grammar school, four Church schools, two foundation schools, a city technology college, Walsall academy, St. Thomas More Catholic school and a raft of specialist schools. In fact, the situation has become impossible for a liberal-minded parent who wants a school for their child that is non-selective, non-sectarian and non-fee-paying. This is how, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, like mine, the choice agenda has resulted not in a wide liberal choice for progressives, but in a narrowing down of opportunities, which are restricted basically to those of a regressive understanding of education.
	I shall pick up on a point that concerns our constituencies that has been made by the Public Accounts Committee. It has found that the academy movement is overspending both in capital and start-up, that it does not provide best value, that the sponsors are taking contracts from their schools and that there is a high exclusion rate. I think that you are perhaps getting ready to get to your feet again because my comments are not narrow enough, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying my best to reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point. A Tory policy is being implemented by bully-boy tactics, and it is not, in most cases, in the best educational interests of the young students of this country. I am happy to support the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate.

Jim Knight: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this debate. He has raised the situation with me a number of times through parliamentary questions, and I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues, even though we may not see completely eye to eye. I am sure that Essex county council will take note of his many comments about it, through reading either  Hansard or the faithful reporting of this debate in the Colchester  Gazette.
	The background to this debate is the importance of standards in schools, and the circumstances in which robust intervention, particularly secondary special measures, can become necessary. I want briefly to give some national figures to put the Colchester case into perspective. The hon. Gentleman asked whether Essex county council itself should be put in special measures. He will be disappointed to hear that I am advised that, generally, Essex is assessed as being strong on children's services. Its main weakness is in secondary provision and I shall make some comments about that, but children's services as a whole are in reasonable shape, according to the inspectors of Essex county council—not that it is my job to be its advocate.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of acknowledging the particular problems faced by schools that serve a large number of children from service families. That is one of the reasons why I took measures to ensure that the pupil count—the school census—takes account of and records the children of service families. I made that promise to the Select Committee on Defence when it examined that subject.
	On 1 September, 42 secondary schools were in special measures in this country, six of which were in Essex and, as the hon. Gentleman said, no fewer than three were in Colchester: Sir Charles Lucas, Thomas Lord Audley and Alderman Blaxill schools. Thomas Lord Audley school has now come out of special measures, but it is still under a notice to improve. That means it is still providing an inadequate education for its pupils but Ofsted considers that its leadership has demonstrated the capacity to improve further. I wish it every success.
	Nevertheless, a serious situation undoubtedly remains in these Colchester schools. In 2005, only 38 per cent. of pupils at Alderman Blaxill were achieving five or more grades A* to C GCSEs, which is well below the national and county average of 56 per cent. That should have sent a warning signal both to the local authority and to the school's governors, but rather than improvement, there has been a fall in attainment since. Figures for 2006 show only 34 per cent. achieving their five GCSE passes. Provisional figures for this year are even worse at 24 per cent. If we look at the same figures including English and maths—the basics that are essential if children are to prosper in the future—they fell from 16 per cent. to 14 per cent. between 2005 and 2006. At the same time, Thomas Lord Audley's figures were 26 per cent. in 2005 and 38 per cent. in 2006, and 20 per cent. and 28 per cent. including English and maths, showing an improvement.
	Sad to say, the provisional 2007 results, this time including English and maths, show Alderman Blaxill school with 17 per cent., Thomas Lord Audley school 27 per cent. and Sir Charles Lucas school 26 per cent. In those three Colchester schools, only around one quarter of young people, sometimes less, are leaving with the qualifications they need. So none of us should be satisfied with that. It is clear that pupils in schools like Alderman Blaxill and other local schools have not shared in the school improvements and rising standards of recent years.
	Alderman Blaxill is in a very serious position. The Ofsted report from May this year highlighted the rapid staff turnover, unsatisfactory teaching and learning, inadequate leadership and management, insufficient challenge from the governors, falling rolls and increasing deficit. I should like to quote what the Ofsted inspectors said about some of those points:
	"Students' achievement is unsatisfactory. Standards at the school are too low and are declining. Relatively few students leave with good GCSE results, and many leave with poor literacy and numeracy skills. Students are not appropriately equipped for further study or employment. The school's expectations for students are too low. Assessment and monitoring of progress are weak.
	Most students are not clear what they should do to improve....Unfilled vacancies mean that students have too many temporary teachers so continuity is poor. One student commented that 'there is no point coming to school because we have different teachers every day'".
	On achievement and standards, for which the school received the lowest category, the report said:
	"Overall progress during Key Stage 3 is significantly slower than expected and has declined since 2005. Students' progress in mathematics and English is weak."
	I could go on at length. On leadership and management, which also received a grade 4, the report said:
	"Leadership and management are inadequate. The school fails to provide a satisfactory standard of education for its students."
	Let me now address the concerns of the hon. Member for Colchester about the replacement of the governing body at Alderman Blaxhill. The report also identified serious weaknesses in the way that the governing body was operating:
	"Governors have not challenged the school's poor performance sufficiently. Pupil numbers are falling, and this is putting additional pressure on the school's financial deficit. The governing body has not ensured that there is a clear strategic direction."
	Similarly, when analysing leadership and management in the school, inspectors found that:
	"Governors, though supportive of the recent changes introduced by the new headteacher, do not challenge or hold the school to account. For example, they have not challenged the school for the lack of improvements since the last inspection and have not ensured that there is clear strategic direction."
	There was also a deterioration in the relationship between the local authority and the governors—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that—which resulted in a delay to the submission of the statement of action following the special measures designation. For those reasons, together with the poor performance I noted earlier, the local authority has taken the step of seeking the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to replace the governing body with an interim executive board, as the hon. Gentleman said. This is an important step towards immediate improvement, though clearly much work needs to be done locally to drive longer term change.
	Local authorities are becoming increasingly aware of the benefit of interim executive boards as they invariably drive forward the necessary changes for schools to recover from special measures. An IEB is usually a small focused group with typically between three and six members, appointed for the full period that it is expected to take to turn the school around. It takes on all the responsibilities of a governing body, including the management of the budget, the curriculum, staffing, pay and performance management, and the appointment of the head teacher and deputy head teacher. The IEB's main functions are to secure a sound basis for future improvement in the school and promote high standards of educational achievement. Members will often have experience of turning round other schools in difficulties or be members of a local authority school improvement service. The members of this IEB have more experience than the former governing body. The chair is Martin North, a consultant head from Havering, and he will be joined by a national strategies expert— [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) says it is a mockery—

Jim Knight: Those figures do not suggest that parents are voting with their feet.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, school organisation is a matter for Essex county council. Decisions about closure and merger are ultimately for the council to make and he needs to continue his robust exchanges with the county council, campaigning, as he does so assiduously, for his constituents and their interests as he sees them.